Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <42E4DA84.5090105@odoko.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:26:44 +0100
From: Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk>
Organization: Odoko Ltd
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050404)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RT] The impact of using OSGi
References: <42E4976F.30702@apache.org> <42E4A370.2090508@apache.org>
 <42E4BCEB.4060603@apache.org> <42E4D673.8050504@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <42E4D673.8050504@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> 
>> Hmm, I'm a little bit confused if I compare the two response quoted 
>> below.
>>
>> I personally would prefer to go the block.xml way and create OSGi
>> manifests and whatever out of it. With that approach we are still
>> independent from OSGi.
>>  
>>
> 
> We discussed this at the hackaton and IIRC the result was to consider 
> using Manifest.mf when the information can fit there, which will allow 
> to use all the fancy tools that are available to edit this *standard* file.

As did we, and concluded the opposite. Different part of the hackathon! 
Oh well.

I'd suggest we wait until we get a better sense of what info is required 
before we make a decision. We will need a manifest file. Whether it is 
manually edited or automatically generated is less of an issue at this 
point as compared to what it actually contains.

Regards, Upayavira