If someone needs votes for doing this effectively, here's my +1 On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Alin Dreghiciu <[email protected]>wrote:
> Well, we are talking about pretty much a small change as it only adds the > code to read the content of the link file and instead of a file input > stream > it uses url.openStream. So, it does not introduce any new dependency and > the > changes are relative small in > size. I can out up a patch quickly. It may look like a lot of changes > but is just moving code around. > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Richard S. Hall <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > On 6/24/09 8:52 AM, Filippo Diotalevi wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Alin Dreghiciu<[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Hi guys, > >>> Yesterday I got the question if Pax URLs are supported by FileInstall. > Of > >>> course there are not as you must have the bundle in the scanned > >>> directory. > >>> But, In my view with quite a simple change this can be done. And is > about > >>> making FileInstall support any url, so including pax urls. > >>> The idea is that file install to support beside jar, .cfg files also > .lnk > >>> files. What is a link file? A simple text file that contains the url of > >>> the > >>> actual bundle to be installed. > >>> So, if file install finds such a file, it reads the content and > installs > >>> the > >>> bundle mentioned in the file via url. If .lnk file changes the old > >>> content > >>> (bundle) is uninstalled and the new one is installed. > >>> To me looks like a powerful option. A more "advanced" usage would be > that > >>> teh .lnk file to be a properties file with properties as "url" and > >>> "start" > >>> and "startlevel". > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Hi Alin, > >> as discussed at [1], I think that there is definitely interest for > >> extending FI to support other artifacts besides jar and cfg files. > >> On the other side, I'm also of the opinion that FI should be usable > >> with the minimum felix configuration (felix+shell+fileinstall), with > >> no additional dependencies. > >> > >> I think the technical solution to make everybody happy should be the > >> same adopted by the Apache Karaf Deployer ([2]): keep the fileinstall > >> lightweight, supporting only jar and cfg, and use the whiteboard > >> pattern to allow the definition of additional "deployers". > >> > >> Doing this way, FI would remain clean and lightweight, and you will be > >> able to install new bundles adding additional support for other > >> artifacts (.lnk, .war, karaf features and so on) > >> > >> WDYT? > >> > >> > > > > I agree. > > > > -> richard > > > > > > > >> [1] > >> > http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--Align-Karaf-deployer-and-felix-fileinstall-td24030876.html#a24032869 > >> [2] > >> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/trunk/karaf/deployer/filemonitor/src/main/java/org/apache/felix/karaf/deployer/filemonitor/DeploymentListener.java > >> > >> > > > > > -- > Alin Dreghiciu > Software Developer - Looking for new projects! > My profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/alindreghiciu > My blog: http://adreghiciu.blogspot.com > http://www.ops4j.org - New Energy for OSS Communities - Open Participation > Software. > http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java - Domain Driven Development. > -- Toni Menzel Independent Software Developer Professional Profile: http://okidokiteam.com [email protected] http://www.ops4j.org - New Energy for OSS Communities - Open Participation Software.
