On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 2:06 PM Steinar Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> Tatu Saloranta <[email protected]>: > > > Could you expand a little bit on this? Would this help by reducing > > need to indicate artifact type (by being defined in one of uber-parent > > poms)? Or is there some downside(s) to indicating packaging type in > > pom.xml (aside from one extra line)? > > I know I've had some tools confused by packaging bundle, but I can no > longer remember which ones. I think it was earlier versions of eclipse > and m2e, but I can't remember for sure. > > When packaging became jar, all of the issues went away. I don't think > it is an issue any longer, but once I got it working I thought it looked > tidier. > > (not a big thing. Today either way works) >
Ah ok. The reason Jackson components are defined to be released as bundles is because AFAIK that is what is required for proper functioning within OSGi container. I was under impression this is not true for regular jars, although relevant metadata can of course be included under META-INF/MANIFEST -+ Tatu +- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jackson-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jackson-dev/CAGrxA24vN8Qu4UkreWp%2Bg5zH5NBT9tZnraO98DrZyedi058K%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.
