Hi David,

I am using java6, geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec-1.1.1.jar ( same
version that activemq uses )

further search ( activemq javax.annotation issue ) leads me to
http://njbartlett.name/2011/02/09/uses-constraints.html

and you are right, remove etc/jre.properties's java6's
javax.annotation* solves the issue.

However, what went wrong? why my @Resource, @PostConstruct, etc muted
when my bundles depend on geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec-1.1.1.jar

Thanks for the quick answser


-Dan

I am still learning to walk the OSGI way. :-)


On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 5:47 PM, David Jencks <[email protected]> wrote:
> Which jdk?
> Which geronimo-annotation_1.???_spec?
> which version of the geronimo-annotation spec?
>
> Getting this right is tricky since the java 6 jdks come with the 1.0 
> javax.annotation classes and javaee 6 needs the 1.1 annotation classes.
>
> Usually the framework is going to be exporting the classes at version 0.0.0.0 
> (no version specified).  If something like spring imports without a version 
> specification it will get it from the jdk/framework bundle whereas stuff that 
> imports with a version will get it from the geronimo bundle.
>
> You might try removing javax.annotation* from the appropriate bit of 
> jre.properties.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 12, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Dan Tran wrote:
>
>> Hi I have a very simple spring power bundle which uses @PostContruct
>> and @PreDestroy. The bundle is built with bundlor-maven-plugin.  It
>> works fine at initial try.
>>
>> Then, I add java.annotation's version to the manifest (
>> bundlor-maven-plugin complains about the mising version). Deploy again
>> with geronimo-annotation's bundle. The PostContruct and PreDestroy
>> stops working.
>>
>> Kara 2.2 does not complain about bundle, every thing looks good.
>>
>> Is there a workaround?  This prevents me from deploying and use
>> activemq client ( which also uses geronimo-annotation )
>>
>> This sounds likes a very fundamental problem, but I am not able to
>> find any existing similar issue yet
>>
>> Big thanks ahead.
>>
>> -Dan
>
>

Reply via email to