I cant be sure as IANAL, but I believe publishing the bdbstore module would be ok. We still wouldnt be distributing the dependency ourselves, none of our other artifacts would depend on it so its still entirely optional, and there are certainly other Apache projects doing similar things.
Looking at what gets generated after applying the patch, it appears it could still do with some additional cleanup beyond just moving the test code (which seems reasonable) because it shouldnt depend on client or management-common either as far as I can see. There is also a typo in the bdb dependency version for the pom generation. It doesnt seem like Oracle distribute it to the central repo and instead only publish to their own, so the version we use isnt available there currently (though an older verison does seem to be). As you know im not a regular Maven user...is publishing POMs that probably wont work without additional configuration by end users frowned upon, or just considered par for the course in situations like that? BTW, the OSGI manifest isnt used for the regular jars (or by extension the maven artifacts), it only gets used when producing specific osgi'fied jars I dont think we actually ship. We should really just use them for the standard jars and make everything the same (but thats a change that probably should wait for the next release). Robbie On 28 October 2011 12:54, Andrew Kennedy <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28 Oct 2011, at 01h16, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> Lets see the patch whether its too late or not.. ? >> >> Robbie >> >> On 26 October 2011 23:33, Andrew Kennedy <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Is it too late to get in a simple change to the build process for 0.14? I'd >>> like to turn on Maven and OSGi artifact generation for the broker. Initial >>> testing locally looks good, and it's just a couple of lines per 'build.xml' >>> file, so I can submit a patch immediately if it's not a problem. We'd just >>> publish the Maven artifacts in the same way as the client - broker and >>> management-common libraries are all that's needed. > > Ok, > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3558 > > I haven't committed it because I wasn't sure about moving the test code in > bdbstore. I assume there would be no legal problem publishing the bdbstore > Maven artifact, since it simply links to the Sleepycat licensed Jar in the > POM dependencies? > > I expect the OSGi MANIFEST .bnd file for the broker will need attention, and > am working on this as part of a feature for using a Qpid broker inside the > Apache Karaf container, similar to the activemq-karaf capability. > > Cheers, > Andrew. > -- > -- andrew d kennedy ? PHONE_MISSING: http://grkvlt.blogspot.com/ ; > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
