Interesting that this example has a nested JAR file. It seems like best practice is to have bundles just be normal JARs (i.e., no nesting) that happen to have OSGi markup in their manifest. Perhaps the simple example is a bit too fancy? ;-)
Jeff "Richard S. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/12/2006 02:24 AM Please respond to [email protected] To [email protected] cc Subject Re: "simple" bundle Timothy Bennett wrote: > Richard, I've got all your "suite" of bundles converted to Maven-2 and > (I think) using the maven osgi plugin... somewhere on my file > system... might be a good starting point, perhaps? Maybe for the simple bundle, since that one is actually trickier than most...ironic since it is the "simple" bundle. ;-) The issue for the simple bundle is that I would like to keep it self-contained in one subproject directory in the svn repo because it really is just a simple example. However, it has an embedded JAR file that I assume maven will want in a separate subproject, but I would really hate to see this happen since it will only continue the pollution of the repo. Also, I don't really know how to properly handle the native library stuff in maven. So, if you (or anyone) could help convert the simple bundle to maven and show me how to deal with these issues, it would be great. I will convert the package names and commit this version with an Ant build script, then I will need help. -> richard
