Did you try the workaround I mentioned before on this thread [1] where I added a new repository ? It was actually for other jars, but might help in this case as well...
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg31727.html On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:56 AM, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've made all the changes required in the tag [1] to get rid of the felix > jars, find and include the emf jars, and I've removed the incubating tag, > DISCLAIMER files etc. However, I'm currently stumped as to why two emf > jars available [2] and [3] don't get downloaded by the build. The build > output complains about URLs that, if cut and pasted into a browser, work > fine. Any clues to explain this odd maven behaviour are welcome. > > Kelvin > > > [1] > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/tags/java/sdo/1.1.1-RC2/ > [2] > http://ftp.ussg.iu.edu/eclipse/modeling/emf/emf/maven2/org/eclipse/emf/codegen/2.2.3/ > [3] > http://ftp.ussg.iu.edu/eclipse/modeling/emf/emf/maven2/org/eclipse/emf/codegen-ecore/2.2.3/ > > 2008/6/3 Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Kelvin, >> >> Sorry about the delay in getting back to you - I can see that you have >> found >> a solution. Yes, you are absolutely right, the felix framework should use >> scope "provided" since SdoBundleActivator is only used when SDO is running >> inside an OSGi container, and the framework classes are provided by the >> container. >> >> >> On 6/3/08, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > Just a thought, would I be right in guessing that if ever our >> > SdoBundleActivator is touched in the runtime, then the environment would >> > be >> > expected to provide the classes to satisfy >> > >> > import org.osgi.framework.BundleActivator; >> > import org.osgi.framework.BundleContext; >> > >> > ? >> > >> > in which case I think declaring a "provided" scope for the felix >> dependency >> > would be the right way to do things >> > >> > Kelvin. >> > >> > 2008/6/3 kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > >> > > Thanks Ant, that looks like progress, but the felix framework jar is >> > now >> > > not in the list of distributed jars. >> > > >> > > Kelvin. >> > > >> > > 2008/6/3 ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > > >> > > Adding an exclude for felix to the distribution pom can fix that, eg >> > here's >> > >> local changes i have just tried: >> > >> >> > >> Index: src/main/assembly/bin.xml >> > >> =================================================================== >> > >> --- src/main/assembly/bin.xml (revision 662488) >> > >> +++ src/main/assembly/bin.xml (working copy) >> > >> @@ -120,13 +120,13 @@ >> > >> <dependencySets> >> > >> <dependencySet> >> > >> >> > >> <outputDirectory>tuscany-sdo-${sdo.version}/lib</outputDirectory> >> > >> - <includes> >> > >> - >> > >> <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:tuscany-sdo-api-r2.1</include> >> > >> + <!-- includes> >> > >> + >> > >> <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:tuscany-sdo-api-r2.1</include> >> > >> >> > <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:tuscany-sdo-lib</include> >> > >> >> > <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:tuscany-sdo-impl</include> >> > >> >> > >> <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:tuscany-sdo-tools</include> >> > >> <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:sample-sdo</include> >> > >> - </includes> >> > >> + </includes --> >> > >> <fileMode>0644</fileMode> >> > >> </dependencySet> >> > >> >> > >> Index: pom.xml >> > >> =================================================================== >> > >> --- pom.xml (revision 662488) >> > >> +++ pom.xml (working copy) >> > >> @@ -56,6 +56,12 @@ >> > >> <groupId>org.apache.tuscany.sdo</groupId> >> > >> <artifactId>tuscany-sdo-impl</artifactId> >> > >> <version>${pom.version}</version> >> > >> + <exclusions> >> > >> + <exclusion> >> > >> + <groupId>org.apache.felix</groupId> >> > >> + <artifactId>org.apache.felix.main</artifactId> >> > >> + </exclusion> >> > >> + </exclusions> >> > >> </dependency> >> > >> <dependency> >> > >> <groupId>org.apache.tuscany.sdo</groupId> >> > >> @@ -67,6 +73,7 @@ >> > >> <artifactId>sample-sdo</artifactId> >> > >> <version>${pom.version}</version> >> > >> </dependency> >> > >> + >> > >> </dependencies> >> > >> >> > >> <build> >> > >> >> > >> Which results in a lib directory containing: >> > >> >> > >> backport-util-concurrent-3.0.jar >> > >> codegen-2.2.3.jar >> > >> codegen-ecore-2.2.3.jar >> > >> common-2.2.3.jar >> > >> ecore-2.2.3.jar >> > >> ecore-change-2.2.3.jar >> > >> ecore-xmi-2.2.3.jar >> > >> sample-sdo-1.1.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar >> > >> stax-api-1.0.1.jar >> > >> tuscany-sdo-api-r2.1-1.1.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar >> > >> tuscany-sdo-impl-1.1.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar >> > >> tuscany-sdo-lib-1.1.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar >> > >> tuscany-sdo-tools-1.1.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar >> > >> wstx-asl-3.2.1.jar >> > >> xsd-2.2.3.jar >> > >> >> > >> ...ant >> > >> >> > >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:31 AM, kelvin goodson < >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > I had an offline chat with Rajini. It seems we need just the >> > framework >> > >> jar >> > >> > of felix in the distro, but if the dependency on felix is declared >> as >> > >> test >> > >> > scope in the pom, then that jar is not available to main phase of >> the >> > >> > build. If its not declared as test scope then we get 5 felix jars >> in >> > >> the >> > >> > binary distro. Rajini's going to take a look when she gets some >> time. >> > >> > >> > >> > Kelvin. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 2008/6/3 kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > >> > >> > >> >> The felix jars were introduced in the fix for "SDO does not work >> > with >> > >> >> OSGi" [1] in commit 620763 [2]. I don't know if this is expected >> > >> >> behaviour, not being an OSGI expert. Comments anyone? >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Kelvin. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1293 >> > >> >> [2] http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=620763 >> > >> >> >> > >> >> 2008/6/3 kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > >> >> >> > >> >> The required libraries are >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> sample-sdo-%RELEASE%.jar >> > >> >>> sdo-api-r2.1-%RELEASE%.jar >> > >> >>> tuscany-sdo-lib-%RELEASE%.jar >> > >> >>> tuscany-sdo-impl-%RELEASE%.jar >> > >> >>> tuscany-sdo-tools-%RELEASE%.jar >> > >> >>> codegen-ecore-2.2.3.jar >> > >> >>> codegen-2.2.3.jar >> > >> >>> ecore-2.2.3.jar >> > >> >>> ecore-change-2.2.3.jar >> > >> >>> ecore-xmi-2.2.3.jar >> > >> >>> common-2.2.3.jar >> > >> >>> xsd-2.2.3.jar >> > >> >>> stax-api-1.0.1.jar >> > >> >>> wstx-asl-3.2.0.jar >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> with >> > >> >>> backport-util-concurrent being optional if you want threadsafe >> > >> >>> collections with Java 1.4 IIRC >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> The felix jar inclusions were introduced some time between commit >> > >> level >> > >> >>> 600913 and 627754; I'm working on narrowing this down at the >> > moment. >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> Kelvin. >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> 2008/6/2 ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> It is strange. >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> Removing the <includes> at the bottom of the assembly bin.xml >> > changes >> > >> it >> > >> >>>> so >> > >> >>>> that the dependencies do get included again, but several felix >> > >> >>>> dependencies >> > >> >>>> also get dragged in. What is the complete list of jars that >> should >> > be >> > >> >>>> included? >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> ...ant >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:02 PM, kelvin goodson < >> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > >> >>>> wrote: >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> > This failure also occurs with the 2.1 version and the >> 2.2-beta-1 >> > >> >>>> version. >> > >> >>>> > The current trunk version is 2.2-beta-3-SNAPSHOT, which I >> > haven't >> > >> >>>> found in >> > >> >>>> > a repository yet, so the only version that seems ever to have >> > >> worked >> > >> >>>> is >> > >> >>>> > the >> > >> >>>> > 2.2-SNAPSHOT version. I have taken a look at the assembly >> plugin >> > >> >>>> JIRAs, >> > >> >>>> > but >> > >> >>>> > it's hard to trawl that since so many JIRAs reference the word >> > >> >>>> dependency. >> > >> >>>> > It's not clear to me whether we benefited from a freak bug that >> > was >> > >> to >> > >> >>>> our >> > >> >>>> > advantage in the 2.2-SNAPSHOT version or whether all the other >> > >> >>>> versions >> > >> >>>> > have >> > >> >>>> > a bug/bugs. >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >>>> > Kelvin. >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >>>> > 2008/6/2 kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >>>> > > I have pinned down the change that caused the absence of EMF >> > jars >> > >> in >> > >> >>>> the >> > >> >>>> > > distribution zip to be the switch from the maven assembly >> > plugin >> > >> >>>> version >> > >> >>>> > > 2.2-SNAPSHOT to the 2.2-beta-2 as altered here [1]. I hope >> > to >> > >> >>>> look at >> > >> >>>> > > this again soon, but have to stop for now. If anyone has >> any >> > >> views >> > >> >>>> on >> > >> >>>> > what >> > >> >>>> > > version we should be using please pipe up. >> > >> >>>> > > >> > >> >>>> > > Kelvin. >> > >> >>>> > > >> > >> >>>> > > [1] >> > >> >>>> > > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >> > >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/java/sdo/pom.xml?r1=628691&r2=642349&pathrev=642349&diff_format=h >> > >> >>>> > > >> > >> >>>> > > Kelvin. >> > >> >>>> > > >> > >> >>>> > > 2008/5/19 kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > >> >>>> > > >> > >> >>>> > > I'm looking at fixing a problem wrt running the samples at >> the >> > >> >>>> moment. >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> Also, I found that with a combination of using IBM JDK 1.5 >> and >> > >> >>>> maven >> > >> >>>> > 2.0.7 >> > >> >>>> > >> I got hit by >> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MJAVADOC-135when >> > >> >>>> trying >> > >> >>>> > to >> > >> >>>> > >> build from the top. We say in our BUILDING doc that 2.0.7 >> is >> > >> OK, >> > >> >>>> > perhaps >> > >> >>>> > >> if we need to respin we should raise that in order to avoid >> > IBM >> > >> JDK >> > >> >>>> > users >> > >> >>>> > >> hitting this issue. It's fine with 2.0.9 >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> Kelvin. >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> 2008/5/18 ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> Please review and vote on the SDO 1.1.1 release. >> > >> >>>> > >>> >> > >> >>>> > >>> The artifacts including binary and source distributions, >> > >> staging >> > >> >>>> maven >> > >> >>>> > >>> repo >> > >> >>>> > >>> and release notes are available at >> > >> >>>> > >>> http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/> >> < >> > http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/> >> > >> <http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/> >> > >> >>>> <http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/> >> > >> >>>> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/> >> > >> >>>> > >>> < >> http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/ >> > >. >> > >> >>>> > >>> The only difference between this and the 1.1 release is the >> > fix >> > >> >>>> for >> > >> >>>> > >>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2240. >> > >> >>>> > >>> >> > >> >>>> > >>> +1 from me. >> > >> >>>> > >>> >> > >> >>>> > >>> ...ant >> > >> >>>> > >>> >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>>> > > >> > >> >>>> > >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Thank you... >> >> Regards, >> >> Rajini >> > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
