Hi Max
On 12.11.2009 11:12:02 Max Berger wrote:
> Jeremias,
>
> a late reply, but hopefully still valid:
>
> - If you use OSGi, you will either need to implement a simplified
> version for detecting plug-ins, or introduce additional dependencies
> (apache felix). Both would increase the size of
Jeremias,
a late reply, but hopefully still valid:
- If you use OSGi, you will either need to implement a simplified
version for detecting plug-ins, or introduce additional dependencies
(apache felix). Both would increase the size of xmlgraphics-commons, so
should be carefully considered.
- at l
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 11:13:44PM +0100, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> On 03.11.2009 21:51:53 Simon Pepping wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 05:18:05PM +0100, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Not sure I understanding what you're trying to say. OSGi is all about
> services, plug-ins or whatever you call it. T
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 05:18:05PM +0100, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Over the past few months, I've started to get FOP, Batik and Commons
> running in an OSGi environment. The first easy step is to just add the
> necessary metadata to the manifest. However, that is not enough in the
> case here. The
On 03.11.2009 21:51:53 Simon Pepping wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 05:18:05PM +0100, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > Over the past few months, I've started to get FOP, Batik and Commons
> > running in an OSGi environment. The first easy step is to just add the
> > necessary metadata to the manifest.
Over the past few months, I've started to get FOP, Batik and Commons
running in an OSGi environment. The first easy step is to just add the
necessary metadata to the manifest. However, that is not enough in the
case here. The problem: we're using the JAR Service Provider mechanism
from the JAR spec
