Since entire thing is going slowly into end I just wanted to clarify one statement from Christian’s earier mail:
> Wiadomość napisana przez Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net> w dniu > 16 lut 2016, o godz. 10:29: > > On 16.02.2016 08:46, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >> Fwiw, if I had to do it again from scratch, I would not introduce >> properties for the OSGi bnd instructions again. >> The main reason is that the maven bundle plugin / bnd tools do make a >> difference between a property which is not set and a property which is >> empty. When it's not set, it usually has a good default (for the most used >> properties). >> The default values are usually good ones, and it can be very difficult to >> overcome the fact that the parent plugin defines them as empty. > So if I interpret you correctly then we would not set properties in the > parent pom like Lukasz proposed. I fully agree with you even if it makes the > configs more verbose. > After rereading the example from Lukasz I found that he proposes to set the > default exports like in Aries to export a package named like the groupId > which is really bad. My proposal was not to use group id as package name but combination of group and artifact id which should always give unique namespace of bundle. I don’t think we have that in Karaf now (however I didn’t verify that too), so it was rather free idea thrown in conversation. Guillaume - in which cases you noticed different behavior for empty and undefined properties? It could be worth for keeping this knowledge for future discussions. Cheers, Łukasz — l...@code-house.org Twitter: ldywicki Blog: http://dywicki.pl Code-House - http://code-house.org
