I would like to understand what are the FUDs here. Speaking for myself, I have explicitly listed all of the issues that I ran into with the base-runtime jar dependency.
Thanks, Raymond ________________________________________________________________ Raymond Feng [email protected] Apache Tuscany PMC member and committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of Tuscany SCA In Action book: www.tuscanyinaction.com Personal Web Site: www.enjoyjava.com ________________________________________________________________ On Dec 10, 2010, at 9:22 AM, ant elder wrote: > There is a lot of FUD here but i don't feel strongly about the whether > the itests use the base jar or pom so if someone wants to change those > fine. I do want to continue using the jar though, its clearly much > simpler for users, i can see that and i know users who have tried it > agree. So i would like to keep it tested with the compliance tests and > i would like to keep demonstrating it in the samples. > > ...ant > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: >> +100 for the POM! >> The dependency on base-runtime jar causes not only development time issues >> (circular OSGi dependencies, missing project references), but also runtime >> issues (duplicate service declarations). >> Thanks, >> Raymond >> ________________________________________________________________ >> Raymond Feng >> [email protected] >> Apache Tuscany PMC member and committer: tuscany.apache.org >> Co-author of Tuscany SCA In Action book: www.tuscanyinaction.com >> Personal Web Site: www.enjoyjava.com >> ________________________________________________________________ >> On Dec 10, 2010, at 1:20 AM, Mike Edwards wrote: >> >> On 02/12/2010 08:49, Simon Laws wrote: >> >> I note that many of the itest poms now depend on the base-runtime jar. >> >> I recognize the need to test this jar if we're going to ship it but it >> >> makes development a bit of a pain, i.e. you have to re-build the jar >> >> to include any changes before you re-run the test. I've changed any >> >> tests I'm working on locally back to depend on the base-runtime pom. >> >> Is there a reason all the tests need to depend on the jar? >> >> Regards >> >> Simon >> >> +1 for the POM >> >> Yours, Mike. >> >>
