Thanks, Matt and Ceki. It's all clear now. Craig
On May 18, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:Just for my information, why is it not desirable to package this as an OSGi compliant jar?Because we would not want an empty bundle containing no classes to usurp the place of the real commons-logging OSGi bundle.Also, why is the maven group id commons-logging and not org.apache.commons? Is this just a historical curiosity or was there a purpose?The artifact we want substitute for has the groupId "commons-logging". Version 0.0-EMPTY has to have the exact same groupId, otherwise it would not be a Maven dependency substitute.Thanks, Craig-- Ceki GülcüLogback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java.http://logback.qos.ch --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@sun.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
