That sounds right to me.
...ant
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:57 AM, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Just a thought, would I be right in guessing that if ever our
> SdoBundleActivator is touched in the runtime, then the environment would
> be
> expected to provide the classes to satisfy
>
> import org.osgi.framework.BundleActivator;
> import org.osgi.framework.BundleContext;
>
> ?
>
> in which case I think declaring a "provided" scope for the felix dependency
> would be the right way to do things
>
> Kelvin.
>
> 2008/6/3 kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Thanks Ant, that looks like progress, but the felix framework jar is
> now
> > not in the list of distributed jars.
> >
> > Kelvin.
> >
> > 2008/6/3 ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > Adding an exclude for felix to the distribution pom can fix that, eg
> here's
> >> local changes i have just tried:
> >>
> >> Index: src/main/assembly/bin.xml
> >> ===================================================================
> >> --- src/main/assembly/bin.xml (revision 662488)
> >> +++ src/main/assembly/bin.xml (working copy)
> >> @@ -120,13 +120,13 @@
> >> <dependencySets>
> >> <dependencySet>
> >>
> >> <outputDirectory>tuscany-sdo-${sdo.version}/lib</outputDirectory>
> >> - <includes>
> >> -
> >> <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:tuscany-sdo-api-r2.1</include>
> >> + <!-- includes>
> >> +
> >> <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:tuscany-sdo-api-r2.1</include>
> >>
> <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:tuscany-sdo-lib</include>
> >>
> <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:tuscany-sdo-impl</include>
> >>
> >> <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:tuscany-sdo-tools</include>
> >> <include>org.apache.tuscany.sdo:sample-sdo</include>
> >> - </includes>
> >> + </includes -->
> >> <fileMode>0644</fileMode>
> >> </dependencySet>
> >>
> >> Index: pom.xml
> >> ===================================================================
> >> --- pom.xml (revision 662488)
> >> +++ pom.xml (working copy)
> >> @@ -56,6 +56,12 @@
> >> <groupId>org.apache.tuscany.sdo</groupId>
> >> <artifactId>tuscany-sdo-impl</artifactId>
> >> <version>${pom.version}</version>
> >> + <exclusions>
> >> + <exclusion>
> >> + <groupId>org.apache.felix</groupId>
> >> + <artifactId>org.apache.felix.main</artifactId>
> >> + </exclusion>
> >> + </exclusions>
> >> </dependency>
> >> <dependency>
> >> <groupId>org.apache.tuscany.sdo</groupId>
> >> @@ -67,6 +73,7 @@
> >> <artifactId>sample-sdo</artifactId>
> >> <version>${pom.version}</version>
> >> </dependency>
> >> +
> >> </dependencies>
> >>
> >> <build>
> >>
> >> Which results in a lib directory containing:
> >>
> >> backport-util-concurrent-3.0.jar
> >> codegen-2.2.3.jar
> >> codegen-ecore-2.2.3.jar
> >> common-2.2.3.jar
> >> ecore-2.2.3.jar
> >> ecore-change-2.2.3.jar
> >> ecore-xmi-2.2.3.jar
> >> sample-sdo-1.1.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar
> >> stax-api-1.0.1.jar
> >> tuscany-sdo-api-r2.1-1.1.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar
> >> tuscany-sdo-impl-1.1.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar
> >> tuscany-sdo-lib-1.1.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar
> >> tuscany-sdo-tools-1.1.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar
> >> wstx-asl-3.2.1.jar
> >> xsd-2.2.3.jar
> >>
> >> ...ant
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:31 AM, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I had an offline chat with Rajini. It seems we need just the
> framework
> >> jar
> >> > of felix in the distro, but if the dependency on felix is declared as
> >> test
> >> > scope in the pom, then that jar is not available to main phase of the
> >> > build. If its not declared as test scope then we get 5 felix jars in
> >> the
> >> > binary distro. Rajini's going to take a look when she gets some time.
> >> >
> >> > Kelvin.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2008/6/3 kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >
> >> >> The felix jars were introduced in the fix for "SDO does not work
> with
> >> >> OSGi" [1] in commit 620763 [2]. I don't know if this is expected
> >> >> behaviour, not being an OSGI expert. Comments anyone?
> >> >>
> >> >> Kelvin.
> >> >>
> >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1293
> >> >> [2] http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=620763
> >> >>
> >> >> 2008/6/3 kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >>
> >> >> The required libraries are
> >> >>>
> >> >>> sample-sdo-%RELEASE%.jar
> >> >>> sdo-api-r2.1-%RELEASE%.jar
> >> >>> tuscany-sdo-lib-%RELEASE%.jar
> >> >>> tuscany-sdo-impl-%RELEASE%.jar
> >> >>> tuscany-sdo-tools-%RELEASE%.jar
> >> >>> codegen-ecore-2.2.3.jar
> >> >>> codegen-2.2.3.jar
> >> >>> ecore-2.2.3.jar
> >> >>> ecore-change-2.2.3.jar
> >> >>> ecore-xmi-2.2.3.jar
> >> >>> common-2.2.3.jar
> >> >>> xsd-2.2.3.jar
> >> >>> stax-api-1.0.1.jar
> >> >>> wstx-asl-3.2.0.jar
> >> >>>
> >> >>> with
> >> >>> backport-util-concurrent being optional if you want threadsafe
> >> >>> collections with Java 1.4 IIRC
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The felix jar inclusions were introduced some time between commit
> >> level
> >> >>> 600913 and 627754; I'm working on narrowing this down at the
> moment.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Kelvin.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2008/6/2 ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It is strange.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Removing the <includes> at the bottom of the assembly bin.xml
> changes
> >> it
> >> >>>> so
> >> >>>> that the dependencies do get included again, but several felix
> >> >>>> dependencies
> >> >>>> also get dragged in. What is the complete list of jars that should
> be
> >> >>>> included?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> ...ant
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:02 PM, kelvin goodson <
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> > This failure also occurs with the 2.1 version and the 2.2-beta-1
> >> >>>> version.
> >> >>>> > The current trunk version is 2.2-beta-3-SNAPSHOT, which I
> haven't
> >> >>>> found in
> >> >>>> > a repository yet, so the only version that seems ever to have
> >> worked
> >> >>>> is
> >> >>>> > the
> >> >>>> > 2.2-SNAPSHOT version. I have taken a look at the assembly plugin
> >> >>>> JIRAs,
> >> >>>> > but
> >> >>>> > it's hard to trawl that since so many JIRAs reference the word
> >> >>>> dependency.
> >> >>>> > It's not clear to me whether we benefited from a freak bug that
> was
> >> to
> >> >>>> our
> >> >>>> > advantage in the 2.2-SNAPSHOT version or whether all the other
> >> >>>> versions
> >> >>>> > have
> >> >>>> > a bug/bugs.
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > Kelvin.
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > 2008/6/2 kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > > I have pinned down the change that caused the absence of EMF
> jars
> >> in
> >> >>>> the
> >> >>>> > > distribution zip to be the switch from the maven assembly
> plugin
> >> >>>> version
> >> >>>> > > 2.2-SNAPSHOT to the 2.2-beta-2 as altered here [1]. I hope
> to
> >> >>>> look at
> >> >>>> > > this again soon, but have to stop for now. If anyone has any
> >> views
> >> >>>> on
> >> >>>> > what
> >> >>>> > > version we should be using please pipe up.
> >> >>>> > >
> >> >>>> > > Kelvin.
> >> >>>> > >
> >> >>>> > > [1]
> >> >>>> > >
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>>
> >>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/java/sdo/pom.xml?r1=628691&r2=642349&pathrev=642349&diff_format=h
> >> >>>> > >
> >> >>>> > > Kelvin.
> >> >>>> > >
> >> >>>> > > 2008/5/19 kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >>>> > >
> >> >>>> > > I'm looking at fixing a problem wrt running the samples at the
> >> >>>> moment.
> >> >>>> > >>
> >> >>>> > >> Also, I found that with a combination of using IBM JDK 1.5 and
> >> >>>> maven
> >> >>>> > 2.0.7
> >> >>>> > >> I got hit by http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MJAVADOC-135when
> >> >>>> trying
> >> >>>> > to
> >> >>>> > >> build from the top. We say in our BUILDING doc that 2.0.7 is
> >> OK,
> >> >>>> > perhaps
> >> >>>> > >> if we need to respin we should raise that in order to avoid
> IBM
> >> JDK
> >> >>>> > users
> >> >>>> > >> hitting this issue. It's fine with 2.0.9
> >> >>>> > >>
> >> >>>> > >> Kelvin.
> >> >>>> > >>
> >> >>>> > >>
> >> >>>> > >> 2008/5/18 ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >>>> > >>
> >> >>>> > >> Please review and vote on the SDO 1.1.1 release.
> >> >>>> > >>>
> >> >>>> > >>> The artifacts including binary and source distributions,
> >> staging
> >> >>>> maven
> >> >>>> > >>> repo
> >> >>>> > >>> and release notes are available at
> >> >>>> > >>> http://people.apache.org/~antelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/>
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/>
> >> <http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/>
> >> >>>> <http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/>
> >> >>>> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/>
> >> >>>> > >>> <http://people.apache.org/%7Eantelder/tuscany/sdo/1.1.1-RC1/
> >.
> >> >>>> > >>> The only difference between this and the 1.1 release is the
> fix
> >> >>>> for
> >> >>>> > >>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2240.
> >> >>>> > >>>
> >> >>>> > >>> +1 from me.
> >> >>>> > >>>
> >> >>>> > >>> ...ant
> >> >>>> > >>>
> >> >>>> > >>
> >> >>>> > >>
> >> >>>> > >
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
