Well, the ticket does still exist. But it is not "welcomed"
"OPS4J artifacts never include org.osgi.* sources. Please revert."

Benjamin

On 03.10.2014 18:47, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> We had problem with org.osgi.service.jdbc in the past because,
> depending of the OSGi version, the package moved.
>
> Previously, org.osgi.service.jdbc was in osgi-compendium, now it moved
> to osgi-enterprise.
>
> I would create the Jira at OPS4j as it could be exported there.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 10/03/2014 06:35 PM, Benjamin Graf wrote:
>> Well, I need org.osgi.service.jdbc for pax-jdbc because I was pleased to
>> revert adding it to pax-jdbc itself.
>> (https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/PAXJDBC-37) Actually my patch for karaf
>> jdbc pooling is not working anymore :(
>>
>> By the way the pax-cdi karaf feature is using enterprise jar as well.
>>
>> Best
>> Benjamin
>>
>> On 03.10.2014 11:18, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>> Definitely, the compendium and enterprise jars should never be
>>> deployed.
>>> Usually, each implementation of it comes with its own copy of the api,
>>> and that's quite fine imho.
>>> Which package do you need ?
>>>
>>> 2014-10-03 10:54 GMT+02:00 Benjamin Graf <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>:
>>>
>>>     Hi,
>>>
>>>     I'm actually struggling how to use the API from the
>>>     org.osgi.enterprise
>>>     bundle. I actually know that deploying via felix fileinstall
>>> fails and
>>>     causes karaf dying (KARAF-2006). Installing via feature or install
>>>     command is successful. But in my opinion it's not a good
>>> solution to
>>>     deploy a bundle which in some circumstances is causing issues and
>>>     by the
>>>     way do I ever really need the whole set of APIs? Mostly not. And of
>>>     cause if using feature files you have to face to version question
>>>     to use
>>>     (4.2/4.3/4.3.1/5.0/...) The answer... it depends!
>>>
>>>     I think there is a bunch of solutions.
>>>
>>>     - Add bundle into libs folder and import specific packages via
>>>     properties file. But this solution is quite hard coded, bad to
>>>     maintain
>>>     and doesn't allow dynamic installation via features.
>>>     - Build separate API bundle which only does include needed API
>>> (split
>>>     enterprise bundle to its defined services). This solution is
>>>     reimplementation official API twice.
>>>     - ...
>>>
>>>     Maybe anyone knows the panacea. :-)
>>>
>>>     Best
>>>     Benjamin
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to