karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>
Subject Re: bnd files in Decanter Project
Date Wed, 17 Feb 2016 22:57:44 GMT
In the change I now did to replace the bnd files I did not set any special
configs in the parent.
Of cause this makes the individual poms a little bit more verbose as you
have to repeat the snippet for the maven-bundle-plugin.
Still I think this is better than using properties. Simply because nothing
strange happens. Each bundle describes clearly what it needs and offer in

I still prefer the bnd files but as we decided to go with the pom config I
strongly prefer this simple style.


2016-02-17 13:18 GMT+01:00 Łukasz Dywicki <luke@code-house.org>:

> Since entire thing is going slowly into end I just wanted to clarify one
> statement from Christian’s earier mail:
> > Wiadomość napisana przez Christian Schneider <chris@die-schneider.net>
> w dniu 16 lut 2016, o godz. 10:29:
> >
> > On 16.02.2016 08:46, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> >> Fwiw, if I had to do it again from scratch, I would not introduce
> >> properties for the OSGi bnd instructions again.
> >> The main reason is that the maven bundle plugin / bnd tools do make a
> >> difference between a property which is not set and a property which is
> >> empty.  When it's not set, it usually has a good default (for the most
> used
> >> properties).
> >> The default values are usually good ones, and it can be very difficult
> to
> >> overcome the fact that the parent plugin defines them as empty.
> > So if I interpret you correctly then we would not set properties in the
> parent pom like Lukasz proposed. I fully agree with you even if it makes
> the configs more verbose.
> > After rereading the example from Lukasz I found that he proposes to set
> the default exports like in Aries to export a package named like the
> groupId which is really bad.
> My proposal was not to use group id as package name but combination of
> group and artifact id which should always give unique namespace of bundle.
> I don’t think we have that in Karaf now (however I didn’t verify that too),
> so it was rather free idea thrown in conversation.
> Guillaume - in which cases you noticed different behavior for empty and
> undefined properties? It could be worth for keeping this knowledge for
> future discussions.
> Cheers,
> Łukasz
> —
> luke@code-house.org
> Twitter: ldywicki
> Blog: http://dywicki.pl
> Code-House - http://code-house.org

Christian Schneider

Open Source Architect

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message