To wrap this up, I plan on closing OAK-7203 as won't fix.
I agree with the idea that the code itself should work without that
dependency, however the added complexity of having that reference dynamic
(over system restarts, not over a single run) it simply not worth the
trouble. The downside is
On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 15:29 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 February 2018 14:37:29 Alex Deparvu wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> Hi,
>
> > I would not move it to oak-core, it would be (I think) a step in
> > the wrong
> > direction wrt. the modularization effort.
>
> seriously, which direction is
On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 14:37 +0100, Alex Deparvu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would not move it to oak-core, it would be (I think) a step in the
> wrong
> direction wrt. the modularization effort.
>
> Re. OAK-7203, I think we should make that specific dependency
> optional, but
> I'm not convinced you
On Tuesday 13 February 2018 14:37:29 Alex Deparvu wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> I would not move it to oak-core, it would be (I think) a step in the wrong
> direction wrt. the modularization effort.
seriously, which direction is it? oak-core now depends on oak-store-composite
(which provides optional
Hi,
I would not move it to oak-core, it would be (I think) a step in the wrong
direction wrt. the modularization effort.
Re. OAK-7203, I think we should make that specific dependency optional, but
I'm not convinced you won't have another bundle pulling in the composite
dependency anyway.
best,
On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 13:04 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 February 2018 13:10:23 Robert Munteanu wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 11:51 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote:
> > > > 1. Move the service to oak-core.
> > > > 2. Require oak-store-composite for deployments
> > > >
> > > > If we go
On Tuesday 13 February 2018 13:10:23 Robert Munteanu wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 11:51 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote:
> > > 1. Move the service to oak-core.
> > > 2. Require oak-store-composite for deployments
> > >
> > > If we go with 1, we have simpler deployments ( one less bundle ).
> > > If
On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 11:51 +0100, Oliver Lietz wrote:
> > 1. Move the service to oak-core.
> > 2. Require oak-store-composite for deployments
> >
> > If we go with 1, we have simpler deployments ( one less bundle ).
> > If we
> > go with 2, we split the logic from the oak-store-composite bundle
On Tuesday 13 February 2018 12:03:34 Robert Munteanu wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> In OAK-7203 [1] we're discussing the best location for the
> MountInfoProviderService. The context is that due to the addition of
> the mounts concept a MountInfoProvider implementation is required and
> for OSGi deployment
Hi,
In OAK-7203 [1] we're discussing the best location for the
MountInfoProviderService. The context is that due to the addition of
the mounts concept a MountInfoProvider implementation is required and
for OSGi deployment we have to add oak-store-composite.
There are two options here:
1. Move
10 matches
Mail list logo
