Hi guys,

On Apr 5, 2012, at 4:21 AM, Tuomas Kiviaho wrote:

> The code requires manifest in order to determine whether or not to use
> wrapping but I think that the trunk already contains a fix for this case so
> you might want to try out 3.0.0-SNAPSHOT. Artifact has to be a jar file for
> this to work and I don't think that Pax URL Wrap would even accept other
> than jars.


In trying o.a.k.tooling:karaf-maven-plugin:3.0.0-SNAPSHOT it seems like I'm 
having a different set of questions:

1) While 3.0.0-SNAP wraps the jars that don't have bundle metadata, on the 
other hand, it generates a monolithic feature for all of the dependencies.  Has 
something changed in how it's intended to be run? In other words, if the 
intended use of the tool is now as a part of each bundle project as opposed to 
a single features generation project, then it would make sense to create a 
monolithic feature descriptor like that.  If so, my concern would be the number 
of feature URLs that would need to be added to the container.
2) Something that became more apparent is that test scope dependencies are not 
filtered out of the feature generation for either version of the plugin. Is 
this intentional? How does one generate a feature.xml without the test 
dependencies?
3) The older version of the plugin used to care about the reference to the 
kernel, and when it came across a dependency that was already a part of a 
kernel feature, it would just reference the feature. This seemed to be the most 
logical thing to do.
4) Related to (3), it seems like I must be missing something WRT the Mojo 
<inputFile> configuration parameter. Does providing some kind of base 
feature.xml alter the behavior significantly that these previous questions are 
completely irrelevant?

I'm going to start single stepping more through the tool to see if I can figure 
this out.  Jean-Baptiste has a great blog entry about how to use the tool and 
Jamie Goodyear talked about it some as well, but it all just seems so in flux 
that I'm starting to wonder if anyone really uses the tool for production yet.  
That's not a poke by any means, I just want to make sure my expectations are 
aligned with the capabilities.  Input here is also welcome.

Thanks!!

Brian

Reply via email to