You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> on 2010/03/10 02:04:48 UTC
osgi core/compendium from felix or osgi?
I noticed some comments on a felix list that I think indicated they
thought the core and compendium bundles from osgi were more
appropriate to use than the ones from felix.
Should we switch? I have the changes locally but thought I should
ask before applying them.
thanks
david jencks
Re: osgi core/compendium from felix or osgi?
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
FWIW, Felix has switched to using the OSGi ones and does not maintain
its own versions of core / compendium anymore.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:56, Lin Sun <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think there was a similar discussion on aries list last year, and we
> decided to use the ones from osgi (which is more current and
> official).
>
> Lin
>
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 8:04 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I noticed some comments on a felix list that I think indicated they thought
>> the core and compendium bundles from osgi were more appropriate to use than
>> the ones from felix.
>>
>> Should we switch? I have the changes locally but thought I should ask
>> before applying them.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
Re: osgi core/compendium from felix or osgi?
Posted by Lin Sun <li...@gmail.com>.
I think there was a similar discussion on aries list last year, and we
decided to use the ones from osgi (which is more current and
official).
Lin
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 8:04 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I noticed some comments on a felix list that I think indicated they thought
> the core and compendium bundles from osgi were more appropriate to use than
> the ones from felix.
>
> Should we switch? I have the changes locally but thought I should ask
> before applying them.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>