You don't neceserally need a pom at each level.
And btw, I think a good idea would be that each bundle
has its own release cycle. They won't change much for a given
version (it's just the manifest which is modified), so I don't see
why they should all be released together.
So we could follow the
The only disadvantage I see is the number to pom's should be
written/maintained for a deeper structure but I might be wrong.
Alin
On 5/25/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sounds good too.
Or we could go further and use an even more hierarchical approach
(depending on the number o
Sounds good too.
Or we could go further and use an even more hierarchical approach
(depending on the number of planned bundles):
felix
-- common
javax
-- activation
1.1
-- servlet
2.3
2.4
-- jta
1.0.1B
-- jms
1.1
o
I had the same doubt this days and it also started from the servlet api. As
right now by posting a new pom for another version to be wrapped indeed we
will get that version in the commons repo and also the old version remains
becuase the repo is not purged but the problem will be that we cannot
re
If the commons svn tree is supposed to be a repository of OSGI bundles,
wouldn't it be better to put the version of the embedded library in the
folder name.
For example, I'd like to work on an HTTP service based on Jetty 6 / servlet
2.5,
but there is already a servlet bundle for 2.3.
So, what abo
