uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marshall Schor <...@schor.com>
Subject Re: osgi version within Maven Bundle plugin
Date Tue, 17 May 2011 12:18:07 GMT

On 5/17/2011 3:07 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
> 2011/5/16 Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com>
>> On 5/16/2011 11:23 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I'm working on the new RC for UIMA Addons, but I'm stuck with an issue
>> with
>>> the addons-osgi-runtime.
>>> In fact when I run the release:prepare (dryRun) the osgiVersion property
>> set
>>> in addons-osgi-runtime POM doesn't get automatically changed from
>>> 2.3.1.SNAPSHOT to 2.3.1 automatically.
>> Would this work: changed the definition of that property to
>> <osgiVersion>${project.version}</osgiVersion>  ?
> the problem is that 2.3.1-SNAPSHOT is not a "valid" OSGi version and it
> should be converted to 2.3.1.SNAPSHOT (this is not a problem for the release
> but for the current/next snapshot versioning)

Oh, sorry, I missed that detail ...

The OSGi version of the project.version is made available in the variable:


Can you use that?  This is provided by the build-helper maven plugin, which is
already being run as part of our builds (see lines 571-583 in version 2 of the
uima overall parent pom).


>>> So, after spending some time looking at different ways of automate that
>> with
>>> Maven, it seemed to me the build-helper-plugin could be the right choice
>> as
>>> it provides an OSGi compliant version naming one can use in the artifact
>>> finalName [1].
>>> Now the issue is that the Maven Bundle plugin seem to not care about the
>>> parsedVersion.osgiVersion property generated by the build-helper and I
>> see
>>> someone already faced the same problem [2].
>>> I see in uimaj-ep-runtime this was resolved changing the packaging type
>> from
>>> bundle to jar and using the maven-dependency-plugin to assembly the
>>> dependencies' classes inside the bundle but it seems to me a bit "dirty"
>> so
>>> I wonder if anyone has a better suggestion.
>> The "Jar" packaging also makes the standard part of our build that adds
>> license,
>> notice, etc. to the jars, work.  I think I remember this layout may not be
>> done
>> with "Bundle" packaging.
> Ok, will spend some time trying out with the jar packaging.
> Thanks,
> Tommaso

View raw message