You don't neceserally need a pom at each level. And btw, I think a good idea would be that each bundle has its own release cycle. They won't change much for a given version (it's just the manifest which is modified), so I don't see why they should all be released together.
So we could follow the way the maven plugins svn tree is managed (or the geronimo specs): the top level pom does not even need to reference all the submodules. On 5/25/07, Alin Dreghiciu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only disadvantage I see is the number to pom's should be written/maintained for a deeper structure but I might be wrong. Alin On 5/25/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sounds good too. > Or we could go further and use an even more hierarchical approach > (depending on the number of planned bundles): > > felix > -- common > ---- javax > ------ activation > -------- 1.1 > ------ servlet > -------- 2.3 > -------- 2.4 > ------ jta > -------- 1.0.1B > ------ jms > -------- 1.1 > ---- org > ------ apache > -------- commons > ---------- lang > > Kinda the same layout as the maven repo. > I think it really depends on how many bundles will end in the commons > area. > > On 5/25/07, Alin Dreghiciu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I had the same doubt this days and it also started from the servlet api. > > As > > right now by posting a new pom for another version to be wrapped indeed > we > > will get that version in the commons repo and also the old version > remains > > becuase the repo is not purged but the problem will be that we cannot > > rebuild the older version if I mistake it's to be found. My idea is to > > keep > > the pom's as right now but to modify the structure of the project to > > something like for example: > > felix > > --commons > > ----servlet-api > > ------2.3 > > --------pom.xml (will generate > > org.apache.felix.commons.servlet-api-2.3.0-0001-SNAPSHOT.jar) > > ------2.4 > > --------pom.xml (will generate > > org.apache.felix.commons.servlet-api-2.4.0-0001-SNAPSHOT.jar) > > > > Alin > > > > On 5/25/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > If the commons svn tree is supposed to be a repository of OSGI > bundles, > > > wouldn't it be better to put the version of the embedded library in > the > > > folder name. > > > For example, I'd like to work on an HTTP service based on Jetty 6 / > > > servlet > > > 2.5, > > > but there is already a servlet bundle for 2.3. > > > > > > So, what about using servlet-api-2.3 instead of servlet-api and same > for > > > others maybe > > > (or maybe not). I don't think there is a need to change the > artifactId. > > > > > > Another related question: when one should include the related > libraries > > in > > > the bundle or > > > reference another bundle ? I see that the http.jetty service includes > > > jetty > > > instead of > > > importing the package ... > > > > > > -- > > > Cheers, > > > Guillaume Nodet > > > ------------------------ > > > Principal Engineer, IONA > > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Principal Engineer, IONA > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >
-- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Principal Engineer, IONA Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
