On 19.11.2010 15:24:49 Peter Kriens wrote: > Sorry to hear you found bnd in ant too hard. However, wouldn't it be > better to help to make a front end for bnd in ant because that is where > your pain seems to be?
Actually, it wasn't just the Ant integration itself. At some point, I had trouble getting something to work. I started debugging but couldn't figure out how to fix it. I'm sorry, but I don't remember after over year what exactly the problem was. > Just looking at your source code it seems you miss a few references > (annotations that refer to classes, the Xyz.class reference (which is > done differently in different compiler x version combinations, create > references to annotations that are not necessary, etc). You also miss > some really important features like version policies and lack of any > validation. And though importing exported packages is good, there are > unfortunately cases where it causes problems. I'm sure there are cases that are not covered. I have a warning about that in the documentation. So far, it works very well for me. > So why is bnd's ant support not so good? Though I use use ant, in my > case ant is just for compilation and leave the rest to bnd. I also just > do not like XML :-( However, you're requirement is legit. Well, and I've had trouble mastering the Bnd format. > I'd actually like to ask you to use bnd under the covers for your work > instead of redoing this work and having to relearn a lot of the lessons. > I think it is actually quite easy using the bndlib and the Builder. > This will allow you to have an XML syntax that is more comfortable for you > while not missing out on the large experience that bnd carries. And > maybe even more important, when you need that complicated feature when > your bundles become more complex, it is actually already there. > > Let me know if you would like to do this and need some help getting started. > Kind regards, I understand your reasoning and appreciate your offer, but given the amount of work I've already invested (writing the docs probably took me almost as long as writing the actual code), I cannot currently allocate more (my itch is scratched). I've had people asking me to publish my thingy and so I did. I think diversity is good and if my utility fits for someone, I think that's good enough, too. I certainly didn't do this to criticise your work. Given that practically everyone uses Bnd tells a story by itself. I simply wasn't comfortable with Bnd, so I did what too many developers constantly do: re-invent the wheel. ;-) Maybe I'll give Bnd another try at some point. After all, I still need to finish OSGi-ification of Apache FOP/Batik. At any rate, I'll keep your suggestion in mind. I may come back to it one day. Thank you for your feedback!!! > > Peter Kriends > > > > > On 19 nov 2010, at 14:05, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > Hi there, > > > > if anyone is producing OSGi bundles with Apache Ant and is not quite > > happy with Bnd (as I was), please have a look at my OSGi bundle utility > > I've published yesterday. Maybe it's useful to someone. Feedback welcome. > > > > http://www.jeremias-maerki.ch/blog/2010/11/18/osgi-bundle-utility-1-0-released > > http://www.jeremias-maerki.ch/development/osgi/bundle-utility.html Best, Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
