I would like to give my -1 for usage of bnd files for now.

I would like to stay consistent between karaf and it’s children and it’s not 
yet time for bndtools. Even if it’s looks nice we don’t jump into it for the 
same reason we do not jump into tycho which offers manifest first approach. 
It’s not because its better or worse, it’s because we do things in our way. Our 
primary build tool is maven and always have been. The way we have built Karaf 
was example for many people to build their own applications thus without futher 
discussion and notification to user/developers providing deeper information 
about migration we can’t do that. I see discussion happening partialy here so 
my arguments to stay-as-is:

- Argument about smaller number of code can be easily overthrown by usage of 
inheriting plugin setup (see 
https://github.com/FasterXML/oss-parent/commit/5f228dbcdf1f6c6cb0c5067385cd4e7432cbda1b
 
<https://github.com/FasterXML/oss-parent/commit/5f228dbcdf1f6c6cb0c5067385cd4e7432cbda1b>
 where I prepared configuration for jackson and it’s submodules) maven will be 
then just +2 LOC for <properties> tags compared to bnd file.
- Declaration of imports in parent module supported by bnd is bad practice just 
as declaring maven dependencies in parents.
- Usage of properties for import/exports is way to go since it’s verified by 
maven-bundle-plugin, this is variable part of maven build and I don’t think 
throwing it out to *.bnd file is necessary. Also with proper setup we can use 
bundle namespaces such 
bundle.namespace=${project.groupId}.${project.artifactId} to automaticaly 
export contents and limit visibility (export: !${bundle.namespace}.internal) so 
only one thing needed will be bundle packaging. If bnd file is just property 
file then we don’t need it. If it does something more than being property file 
- we don’t want that too.
- Possibility to do more things in bnd file may just complicate things more 
than they should be (more magic means harder maintanance), especially for 
people who are trying to understand what is happening with build. Bnd 
definitely doesn’t have nicest code so the less complicated our usage is the 
better it is for all of us. Here I just prefer to be more explicit than 
implicit. I am aware maven bundle plugin just covers bnd but we used it for 
years and it did great job so far. I am aware that bnd offers plugins but we 
don’t want to use them since we stick with maven which offers the same 
functionality and we should not split that into multiple places.

I appreciate your work and constant improvement you are making for community, 
however we can satisfy your need to reduce code without any bigger changes in 
the way we configure projects. If entire discussion is about justification for 
"just" new file - we can easily live without it. If it’s about introducing 
another tool into build chain - we don’t need it and it should be discussed in 
separate thread, but most likely most of arguments at this stage will be 
repeated.

Kind regards,
Łukasz Dywicki
--
l...@code-house.org
Twitter: ldywicki
Blog: http://dywicki.pl
Code-House - http://code-house.org


> Wiadomość napisana przez Morgan <morgan.haut...@gmail.com> w dniu 13 lut 
> 2016, o godz. 11:22:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> After discussing with Christian I would like to revert my -1 to a +1.
> Christian gave me some interesting arguments so I'm not against it anymore.
> 
> Regards;
> Morgan
> 
> On 2016-02-11 11:05, Morgan Hautman wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I'm also giving my -1, as I see no added value on this.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Morgan
>> 
>> On 02/11/2016 09:55 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> the other day I added another module to the decanter project (cassandra
>>> appender).
>>> And I've got to say I was quite astonished to see all those bnd files in
>>> there, but what
>>> really got me stirred. It is mandatory to have those now.
>>> 
>>> I can't remember seeing a vote for such a change in development!
>>> 
>>> So here is my
>>> 
>>> -1
>>> 
>>> on this not communicated and breaking functionality change that sneaked in
>>> there.
>>> 
>>> So whoever changed that needs to revoke this, NOW.
>>> It hasn't been discussed up-front and actually I just can't stand such
>>> sneaky moves.
>>> 
>>> regards, Achim
>>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to