You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> on 2007/03/19 20:10:46 UTC
Adding default OSGi information to JARs
This is mostly directed at Carlos,
Just following up on the discussion we have at EclipseCon. Have you
check the performance of the Felix plugin? If it doesn't add any
significant overhead to people building their JARs due to the
analysis performed by BND, and it is entirely non-invasive then I
think it would be fine to add to the default lifecycle. Just so you
can prepare I would like to know if any significant amount of time is
added to a build to add the bundle information. If it is
insignificant it's not a problem, if it doesn't something like add
20% to users build times then I think we'll have a problem.
Thanks,
Jason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
as soon as https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-199 gets
applied anybody can add the "manifest" goal and get the OSGi manifest
in the jar.
On 3/28/07, Damien Lecan <ml...@dlecan.com> wrote:
> 2007/3/28, Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>:
> > > It would be great if that could be available in 2.0.x version of
> > > Maven. We are too far from 2.1 version.
> > you will always have the option to add a plugin to your pom that will
> > generate the OSGi manifest (the maven-bundle-plugin from Apache
> > Felix). We are talking about 2.1 automatically invoking that plugin.
>
> This is the way I'm doing now, invoking explicitly bundle packaging of
> maven-bundle-plugin.
>
> But I think to all these Apache commons-* projects that could be
> automatically build with OSGi manifest entries.
> If they agree, OSGi information will be automatically added as soon as
> Maven will provide officially this feature.
> So the longer we wait for Maven 2.1, the longer we have to package
> ourself these projects.
>
> Anyway, it's worth waiting for this feature which it's better that nothing :)
>
> Damien
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Damien Lecan <ml...@dlecan.com>.
2007/3/28, Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>:
> > It would be great if that could be available in 2.0.x version of
> > Maven. We are too far from 2.1 version.
> you will always have the option to add a plugin to your pom that will
> generate the OSGi manifest (the maven-bundle-plugin from Apache
> Felix). We are talking about 2.1 automatically invoking that plugin.
This is the way I'm doing now, invoking explicitly bundle packaging of
maven-bundle-plugin.
But I think to all these Apache commons-* projects that could be
automatically build with OSGi manifest entries.
If they agree, OSGi information will be automatically added as soon as
Maven will provide officially this feature.
So the longer we wait for Maven 2.1, the longer we have to package
ourself these projects.
Anyway, it's worth waiting for this feature which it's better that nothing :)
Damien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
On 3/28/07, Damien Lecan <ml...@dlecan.com> wrote:
> > > How this will be done ?
> > At first by putting an innocuous plugin in the lifecycle, or in 2.1
> > with extensions in Plexus it will be an extension to the JAR plugin
> > that populates manifest information.
>
> It would be great if that could be available in 2.0.x version of
> Maven. We are too far from 2.1 version.
>
you will always have the option to add a plugin to your pom that will
generate the OSGi manifest (the maven-bundle-plugin from Apache
Felix). We are talking about 2.1 automatically invoking that plugin.
> > > Will it be active by default ?
> > If we decide that it's non-invasive and doesn't significantly
> > increase the time of anyone's builds then I see so harm.
>
> Ok I understand, but you didn't answer my (not clear) question : if
> OSGi packaging is fast enough, will OSGi manifest entries be
> transparently added to every maven-build jars ?
in 2.1 maybe, in the meantime you just need to add a plugin
>
> Or will it be an OSGi developer option, that will never be known and
> used by other common people ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Damien
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 28 Mar 07, at 9:15 AM 28 Mar 07, Damien Lecan wrote:
>> > How this will be done ?
>> At first by putting an innocuous plugin in the lifecycle, or in 2.1
>> with extensions in Plexus it will be an extension to the JAR plugin
>> that populates manifest information.
>
> It would be great if that could be available in 2.0.x version of
> Maven. We are too far from 2.1 version.
>
Changing the lifecycle is not technically hard but it's still a
change at a very fundamental level. I don't see this going into 2.0.x.
>> > Will it be active by default ?
>> If we decide that it's non-invasive and doesn't significantly
>> increase the time of anyone's builds then I see so harm.
>
> Ok I understand, but you didn't answer my (not clear) question : if
> OSGi packaging is fast enough, will OSGi manifest entries be
> transparently added to every maven-build jars ?
Yes, they would be transparently added provided it is entirely non-
invasive and the performance impact is slight.
>
> Or will it be an OSGi developer option, that will never be known and
> used by other common people ?
Commons users will never see it. We're not pushing OSGi
configurations in people's faces.
Jason.
>
> Thanks
>
> Damien
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
half here, half in felix-dev
I have made some improvements to Felix bundle plugin for manifest
generation that you can see here
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-199
once that it's applied and hopefully released we'll give a try with
our own maven artifacts
On 3/28/07, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I'm working with the Felix guys to go through all these issues. As
> > usual Maven would provide a default manifest that you could override
> > with configuration in your pom.
>
> Where is this conversation happening? I'd like to hear more about the details.
>
> -Nathan
>
> >
> > On 3/28/07, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On 3/28/07, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We're just trying to help out the OSGi folks so that they aren't
> > > > repackaging everything which is what they are doing. It's basically
> > > > doing the minimum work so that JARs produced will function with OSGi
> > > > containers. If it has no impact on normal users there's no real harm
> > > > in trying to help. I just don't want Maven used as a vehicle to push
> > > > OSGi down people's throats.
> > > >
> > > > Jason.
> > >
> > > I must concur with Jason's note of caution. Be very careful in this
> > > realm. You can't just arbitrarily add OSGi entries to a manifest of
> > > every build. OSGi entries must be defined very carefully, as they are
> > > deployment descriptors and can have a significant impact on how a
> > > bundle is consumed. There are many factors to take into consideration.
> > >
> > > For example, there are multiple ways to declare dependencies, you can
> > > declare a dependency on a bundle, by name and you can declare a
> > > dependency on a Java package, which abstracts you from a particular
> > > packaging. Additionally, each dependency can be optional, meaning the
> > > bundle can be started, even if that dependency isn't available. The
> > > dependencies can be version-specific too, so a bundle can require a
> > > specific version of a bundle or specific version of a Java package.
> > > Note, though OSGi versions are similar to Maven2 versions, there are
> > > some major conflicts, such as the interpretation of qualifiers.
> > >
> > > Once OSGi information is added to a JAR to make it a proper OSGi
> > > bundle, those values make an API contract that must be strictly
> > > adhered to.
> > >
> > > It's my opinion that OSGi enablement must be taken on by
> > > component/project owners. I think that the only part the Maven
> > > community should play here is adding OSGi support and making it easy.
> > > The only other consideration might be to consider how Maven2 might be
> > > OSGi hosted, but I'd be very surprised if this turned out as simple as
> > > all Maven JARs adding "standard" manifest attributes.
> > >
> > > -Nathan Beyer
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
> > No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
> > -- The Princess Bride
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>.
On 3/28/07, Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm working with the Felix guys to go through all these issues. As
> usual Maven would provide a default manifest that you could override
> with configuration in your pom.
Where is this conversation happening? I'd like to hear more about the details.
-Nathan
>
> On 3/28/07, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 3/28/07, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > We're just trying to help out the OSGi folks so that they aren't
> > > repackaging everything which is what they are doing. It's basically
> > > doing the minimum work so that JARs produced will function with OSGi
> > > containers. If it has no impact on normal users there's no real harm
> > > in trying to help. I just don't want Maven used as a vehicle to push
> > > OSGi down people's throats.
> > >
> > > Jason.
> >
> > I must concur with Jason's note of caution. Be very careful in this
> > realm. You can't just arbitrarily add OSGi entries to a manifest of
> > every build. OSGi entries must be defined very carefully, as they are
> > deployment descriptors and can have a significant impact on how a
> > bundle is consumed. There are many factors to take into consideration.
> >
> > For example, there are multiple ways to declare dependencies, you can
> > declare a dependency on a bundle, by name and you can declare a
> > dependency on a Java package, which abstracts you from a particular
> > packaging. Additionally, each dependency can be optional, meaning the
> > bundle can be started, even if that dependency isn't available. The
> > dependencies can be version-specific too, so a bundle can require a
> > specific version of a bundle or specific version of a Java package.
> > Note, though OSGi versions are similar to Maven2 versions, there are
> > some major conflicts, such as the interpretation of qualifiers.
> >
> > Once OSGi information is added to a JAR to make it a proper OSGi
> > bundle, those values make an API contract that must be strictly
> > adhered to.
> >
> > It's my opinion that OSGi enablement must be taken on by
> > component/project owners. I think that the only part the Maven
> > community should play here is adding OSGi support and making it easy.
> > The only other consideration might be to consider how Maven2 might be
> > OSGi hosted, but I'd be very surprised if this turned out as simple as
> > all Maven JARs adding "standard" manifest attributes.
> >
> > -Nathan Beyer
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
> No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
> -- The Princess Bride
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
I'm working with the Felix guys to go through all these issues. As
usual Maven would provide a default manifest that you could override
with configuration in your pom.
On 3/28/07, Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
> >
> > We're just trying to help out the OSGi folks so that they aren't
> > repackaging everything which is what they are doing. It's basically
> > doing the minimum work so that JARs produced will function with OSGi
> > containers. If it has no impact on normal users there's no real harm
> > in trying to help. I just don't want Maven used as a vehicle to push
> > OSGi down people's throats.
> >
> > Jason.
>
> I must concur with Jason's note of caution. Be very careful in this
> realm. You can't just arbitrarily add OSGi entries to a manifest of
> every build. OSGi entries must be defined very carefully, as they are
> deployment descriptors and can have a significant impact on how a
> bundle is consumed. There are many factors to take into consideration.
>
> For example, there are multiple ways to declare dependencies, you can
> declare a dependency on a bundle, by name and you can declare a
> dependency on a Java package, which abstracts you from a particular
> packaging. Additionally, each dependency can be optional, meaning the
> bundle can be started, even if that dependency isn't available. The
> dependencies can be version-specific too, so a bundle can require a
> specific version of a bundle or specific version of a Java package.
> Note, though OSGi versions are similar to Maven2 versions, there are
> some major conflicts, such as the interpretation of qualifiers.
>
> Once OSGi information is added to a JAR to make it a proper OSGi
> bundle, those values make an API contract that must be strictly
> adhered to.
>
> It's my opinion that OSGi enablement must be taken on by
> component/project owners. I think that the only part the Maven
> community should play here is adding OSGi support and making it easy.
> The only other consideration might be to consider how Maven2 might be
> OSGi hosted, but I'd be very surprised if this turned out as simple as
> all Maven JARs adding "standard" manifest attributes.
>
> -Nathan Beyer
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Nathan Beyer <nd...@apache.org>.
On 3/28/07, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
>
> We're just trying to help out the OSGi folks so that they aren't
> repackaging everything which is what they are doing. It's basically
> doing the minimum work so that JARs produced will function with OSGi
> containers. If it has no impact on normal users there's no real harm
> in trying to help. I just don't want Maven used as a vehicle to push
> OSGi down people's throats.
>
> Jason.
I must concur with Jason's note of caution. Be very careful in this
realm. You can't just arbitrarily add OSGi entries to a manifest of
every build. OSGi entries must be defined very carefully, as they are
deployment descriptors and can have a significant impact on how a
bundle is consumed. There are many factors to take into consideration.
For example, there are multiple ways to declare dependencies, you can
declare a dependency on a bundle, by name and you can declare a
dependency on a Java package, which abstracts you from a particular
packaging. Additionally, each dependency can be optional, meaning the
bundle can be started, even if that dependency isn't available. The
dependencies can be version-specific too, so a bundle can require a
specific version of a bundle or specific version of a Java package.
Note, though OSGi versions are similar to Maven2 versions, there are
some major conflicts, such as the interpretation of qualifiers.
Once OSGi information is added to a JAR to make it a proper OSGi
bundle, those values make an API contract that must be strictly
adhered to.
It's my opinion that OSGi enablement must be taken on by
component/project owners. I think that the only part the Maven
community should play here is adding OSGi support and making it easy.
The only other consideration might be to consider how Maven2 might be
OSGi hosted, but I'd be very surprised if this turned out as simple as
all Maven JARs adding "standard" manifest attributes.
-Nathan Beyer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 28 Mar 07, at 9:27 AM 28 Mar 07, Kaloyan Enimanev wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Damien Lecan <ml...@dlecan.com> wrote:
>> > > How this will be done ?
>> > At first by putting an innocuous plugin in the lifecycle, or in 2.1
>> > with extensions in Plexus it will be an extension to the JAR plugin
>> > that populates manifest information.
>>
>> It would be great if that could be available in 2.0.x version of
>> Maven. We are too far from 2.1 version.
>>
>> > > Will it be active by default ?
>> > If we decide that it's non-invasive and doesn't significantly
>> > increase the time of anyone's builds then I see so harm.
>>
>> Ok I understand, but you didn't answer my (not clear) question : if
>> OSGi packaging is fast enough, will OSGi manifest entries be
>> transparently added to every maven-build jars ?
>>
>> Or will it be an OSGi developer option, that will never be known and
>> used by other common people ?
>
> IMHO this should depend on the type of the artifact i.e. the OSGI
> bundles should be recognizable as such in the way we recognize EJB's
> or WAR files.
>
> This will provide a clear way to determine whether an artifact needs
> OSGI specific headers or not.
>
We're just trying to help out the OSGi folks so that they aren't
repackaging everything which is what they are doing. It's basically
doing the minimum work so that JARs produced will function with OSGi
containers. If it has no impact on normal users there's no real harm
in trying to help. I just don't want Maven used as a vehicle to push
OSGi down people's throats.
Jason.
> best regards,
> Kaloyan
>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Damien
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Kaloyan Enimanev <ke...@gmail.com>.
Hi Milos
I was just expressing an opinion :)
I'm not part of the Maven team.
best regards,
Kaloyan
On 3/28/07, Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if I understood correctly, OSGI bundles should have a special
> packaging like ear/wars do and define it's lifecycle to include the
> OSGI stuff in the resulting binary
>
> Milos
>
> On 3/28/07, Damien Lecan <ml...@dlecan.com> wrote:
> > > > Ok I understand, but you didn't answer my (not clear) question : if
> > > > OSGi packaging is fast enough, will OSGi manifest entries be
> > > > transparently added to every maven-build jars ?
> > > >
> > > > Or will it be an OSGi developer option, that will never be known and
> > > > used by other common people ?
> > >
> > > IMHO this should depend on the type of the artifact i.e. the OSGI
> > > bundles should be recognizable as such in the way we recognize EJB's
> > > or WAR files.
> >
> > EJB jar files can be OSGI bundles too ! :)
> > See www.easybeans.org project
> >
> > But you're right, for WAR and EAR files, OSGi bundling has not been
> > explored yet and should be enriched with OSGi information.
> >
> > Damien
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com>.
if I understood correctly, OSGI bundles should have a special
packaging like ear/wars do and define it's lifecycle to include the
OSGI stuff in the resulting binary
Milos
On 3/28/07, Damien Lecan <ml...@dlecan.com> wrote:
> > > Ok I understand, but you didn't answer my (not clear) question : if
> > > OSGi packaging is fast enough, will OSGi manifest entries be
> > > transparently added to every maven-build jars ?
> > >
> > > Or will it be an OSGi developer option, that will never be known and
> > > used by other common people ?
> >
> > IMHO this should depend on the type of the artifact i.e. the OSGI
> > bundles should be recognizable as such in the way we recognize EJB's
> > or WAR files.
>
> EJB jar files can be OSGI bundles too ! :)
> See www.easybeans.org project
>
> But you're right, for WAR and EAR files, OSGi bundling has not been
> explored yet and should be enriched with OSGi information.
>
> Damien
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Damien Lecan <ml...@dlecan.com>.
> > Ok I understand, but you didn't answer my (not clear) question : if
> > OSGi packaging is fast enough, will OSGi manifest entries be
> > transparently added to every maven-build jars ?
> >
> > Or will it be an OSGi developer option, that will never be known and
> > used by other common people ?
>
> IMHO this should depend on the type of the artifact i.e. the OSGI
> bundles should be recognizable as such in the way we recognize EJB's
> or WAR files.
EJB jar files can be OSGI bundles too ! :)
See www.easybeans.org project
But you're right, for WAR and EAR files, OSGi bundling has not been
explored yet and should be enriched with OSGi information.
Damien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Kaloyan Enimanev <ke...@gmail.com>.
On 3/28/07, Damien Lecan <ml...@dlecan.com> wrote:
> > > How this will be done ?
> > At first by putting an innocuous plugin in the lifecycle, or in 2.1
> > with extensions in Plexus it will be an extension to the JAR plugin
> > that populates manifest information.
>
> It would be great if that could be available in 2.0.x version of
> Maven. We are too far from 2.1 version.
>
> > > Will it be active by default ?
> > If we decide that it's non-invasive and doesn't significantly
> > increase the time of anyone's builds then I see so harm.
>
> Ok I understand, but you didn't answer my (not clear) question : if
> OSGi packaging is fast enough, will OSGi manifest entries be
> transparently added to every maven-build jars ?
>
> Or will it be an OSGi developer option, that will never be known and
> used by other common people ?
IMHO this should depend on the type of the artifact i.e. the OSGI
bundles should be recognizable as such in the way we recognize EJB's
or WAR files.
This will provide a clear way to determine whether an artifact needs
OSGI specific headers or not.
best regards,
Kaloyan
>
> Thanks
>
> Damien
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Damien Lecan <ml...@dlecan.com>.
> > How this will be done ?
> At first by putting an innocuous plugin in the lifecycle, or in 2.1
> with extensions in Plexus it will be an extension to the JAR plugin
> that populates manifest information.
It would be great if that could be available in 2.0.x version of
Maven. We are too far from 2.1 version.
> > Will it be active by default ?
> If we decide that it's non-invasive and doesn't significantly
> increase the time of anyone's builds then I see so harm.
Ok I understand, but you didn't answer my (not clear) question : if
OSGi packaging is fast enough, will OSGi manifest entries be
transparently added to every maven-build jars ?
Or will it be an OSGi developer option, that will never be known and
used by other common people ?
Thanks
Damien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 28 Mar 07, at 4:02 AM 28 Mar 07, Damien Lecan wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> [...]
>> it is entirely non-invasive then I
>> think it would be fine to add to the default lifecycle.
>
> How this will be done ?
At first by putting an innocuous plugin in the lifecycle, or in 2.1
with extensions in Plexus it will be an extension to the JAR plugin
that populates manifest information.
> Does "bundle" packaging will become official, or will it supercede
> default jar packaging ?
Never.
> Will it be active by default ?
>
If we decide that it's non-invasive and doesn't significantly
increase the time of anyone's builds then I see so harm.
Jason.
> Thank you for this great job !
>
> Damien Lecan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Damien Lecan <ml...@dlecan.com>.
Hello,
> [...]
> it is entirely non-invasive then I
> think it would be fine to add to the default lifecycle.
How this will be done ?
Does "bundle" packaging will become official, or will it supercede
default jar packaging ?
Will it be active by default ?
Thank you for this great job !
Damien Lecan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Monday 19 March 2007 16:12, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> afaik they passed the vote to graduate
Oh yea. Forgot about that and google still brings up their incubator
page as the first hit (which still says it's undergoing incubation).
Guess they need to upgrade the incubator sites to let people know
they're graduating.
Dan
> On 3/19/07, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> > One more thing to take into consideration:
> >
> > Felix is in incubation. Thus, as of right now, the plugin cannot
> > go to central. Feel free to complain about that on
> > general@incubator.a.o. :-)
> >
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > On Monday 19 March 2007 16:03, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> > > I'm still waiting for a big patch to be applied
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-199
> > >
> > > And they need to make a release also.
> > >
> > > I'll take a look at the performance
> > >
> > > On 3/19/07, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
> > > > This is mostly directed at Carlos,
> > > >
> > > > Just following up on the discussion we have at EclipseCon. Have
> > > > you check the performance of the Felix plugin? If it doesn't add
> > > > any significant overhead to people building their JARs due to
> > > > the analysis performed by BND, and it is entirely non-invasive
> > > > then I think it would be fine to add to the default lifecycle.
> > > > Just so you can prepare I would like to know if any significant
> > > > amount of time is added to a build to add the bundle
> > > > information. If it is insignificant it's not a problem, if it
> > > > doesn't something like add 20% to users build times then I think
> > > > we'll have a problem.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Jason.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >---- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> > --
> > J. Daniel Kulp
> > Principal Engineer
> > IONA
> > P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
> > daniel.kulp@iona.com
> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
afaik they passed the vote to graduate
On 3/19/07, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> One more thing to take into consideration:
>
> Felix is in incubation. Thus, as of right now, the plugin cannot go to
> central. Feel free to complain about that on
> general@incubator.a.o. :-)
>
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Monday 19 March 2007 16:03, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> > I'm still waiting for a big patch to be applied
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-199
> >
> > And they need to make a release also.
> >
> > I'll take a look at the performance
> >
> > On 3/19/07, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
> > > This is mostly directed at Carlos,
> > >
> > > Just following up on the discussion we have at EclipseCon. Have you
> > > check the performance of the Felix plugin? If it doesn't add any
> > > significant overhead to people building their JARs due to the
> > > analysis performed by BND, and it is entirely non-invasive then I
> > > think it would be fine to add to the default lifecycle. Just so you
> > > can prepare I would like to know if any significant amount of time
> > > is added to a build to add the bundle information. If it is
> > > insignificant it's not a problem, if it doesn't something like add
> > > 20% to users build times then I think we'll have a problem.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jason.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
> --
> J. Daniel Kulp
> Principal Engineer
> IONA
> P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
> daniel.kulp@iona.com
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
One more thing to take into consideration:
Felix is in incubation. Thus, as of right now, the plugin cannot go to
central. Feel free to complain about that on
general@incubator.a.o. :-)
Dan
On Monday 19 March 2007 16:03, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> I'm still waiting for a big patch to be applied
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-199
>
> And they need to make a release also.
>
> I'll take a look at the performance
>
> On 3/19/07, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
> > This is mostly directed at Carlos,
> >
> > Just following up on the discussion we have at EclipseCon. Have you
> > check the performance of the Felix plugin? If it doesn't add any
> > significant overhead to people building their JARs due to the
> > analysis performed by BND, and it is entirely non-invasive then I
> > think it would be fine to add to the default lifecycle. Just so you
> > can prepare I would like to know if any significant amount of time
> > is added to a build to add the bundle information. If it is
> > insignificant it's not a problem, if it doesn't something like add
> > 20% to users build times then I think we'll have a problem.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jason.
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
daniel.kulp@iona.com
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Adding default OSGi information to JARs
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
I'm still waiting for a big patch to be applied
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-199
And they need to make a release also.
I'll take a look at the performance
On 3/19/07, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
> This is mostly directed at Carlos,
>
> Just following up on the discussion we have at EclipseCon. Have you
> check the performance of the Felix plugin? If it doesn't add any
> significant overhead to people building their JARs due to the
> analysis performed by BND, and it is entirely non-invasive then I
> think it would be fine to add to the default lifecycle. Just so you
> can prepare I would like to know if any significant amount of time is
> added to a build to add the bundle information. If it is
> insignificant it's not a problem, if it doesn't something like add
> 20% to users build times then I think we'll have a problem.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org