Hmm, I'm a little bit confused if I compare the two response quoted below. I personally would prefer to go the block.xml way and create OSGi manifests and whatever out of it. With that approach we are still independent from OSGi.
Carsten >>BTW, what is the status about the dependency definition (block.xml). >>What are we planning to use? Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > A lot of what's was planned to be in block.xml is already defined by the > OSGi bundle manifest file. So it will be stripped-down to keep only what > is specific to Cocoon blocks. > Upayavira wrote: > Just replying to this bit - Daniel showed me the block.xml before he > left ApacheCon. It looks pretty simple. Also, given all the other > 'dependency' files we will/might need (gump.xml, manifest, maven project > files, etc) in a discussion it was suggested that we're better of > sticking with our own blocks.xml file - we can always generate anything > else we want from that. > > So, AFAICS, blokc.xml stays as Stefano proposed it. > -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
