Hi alin, Just my 2cents...
I seem to recall that the .lnk extension under windows is used to define shortcuts. Does this potentionally impose problems for the windows users out there?? Cheers, Dennis On 24 jun 2009, at 17:41, "Alin Dreghiciu" <adreghi...@gmail.com> 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 > <he...@ungoverned.org>wrote: > >> On 6/24/09 8:52 AM, Filippo Diotalevi wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Alin >>> Dreghiciu<adreghi...@gmail.com> >>> 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.
