+1 to change the tools maven packaging to bundle first.

--  
Willem Jiang

Red Hat, Inc.
Web: http://www.redhat.com
Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English)
http://jnn.iteye.com (Chinese)
Twitter: willemjiang  
Weibo: 姜宁willem



On August 28, 2014 at 2:41:45 AM, Daniel Kulp ([email protected]) wrote:
>  
> On Aug 26, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>  
> > In 2.x, cxf tooling jars were packaged as valid OSGi bundles.
> > In 3.x, the maven packaging has been changed from jar to bundle for most of
> > the bundles, but the tool ones remained jars. Unfortunately, the OSGi
> > manifest is not generated anymore.
>  
> When I did the conversion from packaging:jar to bundle, I kind of skipped the 
> tooling  
> jars. The main reasons were:
>  
> 1) I couldn’t find a real use case where the tooling needed to work in OSGi 
> so it wasn’t a  
> high priority.
>  
> 2) I’m 90% certain that some of the tooling won’t work in OSGi anyway. Much 
> of the tooling  
> would need to be able to load the various META-INF/tools-plugins.xml files 
> from the  
> various bundles. That would require a new Bundle Activator or something like 
> we do for  
> the bus-extensions.txt to be able to read them from the various bundles. 
> Since that would,  
> at the very least, prevent then entire wsdl2* set of tools from running and 
> likely others,  
> I didn’t pursue it much further. If I WAS to pursue this further, I’d likely 
> ditch the tools-plugins.xml  
> files entirely and go with the bus-extensions.txt and load them all via a 
> Bus. Not a high  
> priority though.
>  
>  
> > I'm raising this issue because the feature definitions comes with a
> > cxf-tools feature which can't be used anymore in 3.x.
> > Given I'm verifying those features, which way should I go ? Remove this
> > feature or change the maven packaging to bundle ?
>  
> I’m OK with changing them to bundle. There are definite use cases where 
> someone COULD  
> use some of the functionality out of the jars without actually invoking the 
> tools themselves.  
> I think the WSDL validator might be usable that way.
>  
>  
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>  
>  

Reply via email to