You are right, as far as I understand it's just history/legacy. If there's a volunteer to help clean this up and make the jars more friendly that would be really great; I don't have a detailed understanding of what's best here.
Kelvin. On 26/09/2007, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: > > Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > >> All: > >> Some of the built binaries alreday have a manifest that is > >> semi-osgi'fied. > >> I suggest that it would be really nice if all the tuscany binaries could > >> be delivered with a complete OSGi manifest. > >> I can see only good stuffs from that as it makes OSGi friendly for Felix > >> or Eclipse or general OSGi consumption. > >> That is something that could be done as part of the build with little to > >> no core code change. > >> There are tools at Felix and http://www.aqute.biz/Code/Bnd that can help > >> there. > >> Ideally we should be to infer most everything from the poms. > >> In practice there may be some subtle devilish details that may require > >> some manual adjustments, but nothing extra ordinary. > >> What do you think? > > > > It's not the first time that this comes up: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200707.mbox/[EMAIL > > PROTECTED] > > > > > > ... good that you bring it up again as it looks like there was > > consensus to add OSGi manifest entries to the SCA API Jar, but it has > > not been done yet :) > > > > Only the SDO API Jar manifest contain OSGi entries at the moment, > > generated using the Felix plugin like that: > > <plugin> > > <groupId>org.apache.felix.plugins</groupId> > > <artifactId>maven-osgi-plugin</artifactId> > > <version>0.8.0-SNAPSHOT</version> > > <extensions>true</extensions> > > <configuration> > > <osgiManifest> > > <bundleName>${pom.name}</bundleName> > > <bundleDescription>${pom.description}</bundleDescription> > > <bundleVendor>${pom.organization.name}</bundleVendor> > > <bundleLocalization>plugin</bundleLocalization> > > <bundleSymbolicName>commonj.sdo</bundleSymbolicName> > > <exportPackage> > > commonj.sdo;version="${specVersion}", > > commonj.sdo.helper;version="${specVersion}, > > commonj.sdo.impl;version="${specVersion}" > > </exportPackage> > > </osgiManifest> > > </configuration> > > </plugin> > > > > The SDO pom.xml probably needs to upgrade from Felix 0.8.0-SNAPSHOT to > > 1.0.0, and I believe that the plugin has been renamed to > > maven-bundle-plugin now. > > > > +1 from me to start adding OSGi manifest entries to the SCA sca-api > > and domain-api Jars. > > > > I'm not sure about adding OSGi manifests entries to all the other > > implementation Jars which do not publish any Application programming > > interfaces. Which configuration / use case will benefit from having > > OSGi manifest entries in these Jars? > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Actually more SDO Jars have OSGi manifests entries, generated > differently, like that: > > <plugin> > <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId> > <artifactId>maven-jar-plugin</artifactId> > <version>2.1</version> > <configuration> > <archive> > <manifestEntries> > <Extension-Name>${project.artifactId}</Extension-Name> > <Specification-Title>${project.name}</Specification-Title> > <Specification-Vendor>${project.organization.name}</Specification-Vendor> > <Specification-Version>${version}</Specification-Version> > <Implementation-Title>${project.artifactId}</Implementation-Title> > <Implementation-Vendor>${project.organization.name}</Implementation-Vendor> > <Implementation-Vendor-Id>org.apache</Implementation-Vendor-Id> > <Implementation-Version>${project.version}</Implementation-Version> > <!-- > <Bundle-ManifestVersion>2</Bundle-ManifestVersion> > <Bundle-Name>${project.name}</Bundle-Name> > <Bundle-SymbolicName>org.apache.tuscany.sdo.impl</Bundle-SymbolicName> > <Bundle-Version>1.0.0</Bundle-Version> > <Bundle-Vendor>${project.organization.name}</Bundle-Vendor> > --> > <Require-Bundle>org.eclipse.emf.common,org.eclipse.emf.ecore,org.eclipse.emf.ecore.change,org.eclipse.emf.ecore.xmi,org.eclipse.xsd,org.apache.tuscany.sdo.spec;visibility:=reexport</Require-Bundle> > <Export-Package>commonj.sdo.impl,org.apache.tuscany.sdo,org.apache.tuscany.sdo.helper,org.apache.tuscany.sdo.impl,org.apache.tuscany.sdo.test,org.apache.tuscany.sdo.util</Export-Package> > </manifestEntries> > </archive> > </configuration> > </plugin> > > This looks a little more complicated than the Felix way... Could the SDO > folks shed some light on why some modules use Felix and others not? is > it history? legacy? :) or is there a technical reason for that? > > Thanks > > -- > Jean-Sebastien > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
