Another reason is that in general you need to handle optional dependencies.
I feel that this list of -runbundles is a primary design artifact of my system,
on par with source code, and not a consequence of the initial requirements. For
this reason I never enable autosave since it changes the bundles that end up in
my end-result without me being aware of it; it keeps on working (and growing).
I find it much better to get an unresolved error in my running framework when I
make a save so I can consider the consequence of that change. After 10+ changes
it becomes a lot harder to figure out the cause and then generally people let
their dependencies go for it is too hard to figure out where each one came from.
In a maven world where a popular project like like ActiveMQ has almost 300
dependencies with a mish-mash of versions I guess I am the odd one out :-(
Kind regards,
Peter Kriens
> On 2 jun. 2016, at 07:59, Tim Ward <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hopefully the upsides are obvious. There are a few potential downsides:
>
> 1) You may have added extra runbundles which will be lost
> 2) If the resolve operation is large (particularly if it uses big
> repositories) then it can take a long time.
> 3) Resolution is a destructive operation (it changes the file) which doesn't
> fit the normal model for a save.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Tim
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 2 Jun 2016, at 05:00, Paul F Fraser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there any downside to selecting Auto Resolve on Save in Enroute?
>>
>> Paul Fraser
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSGi Developer Mail List
>> [email protected]
>> https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
> _______________________________________________
> OSGi Developer Mail List
> [email protected]
> https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List [email protected] https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
