Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-felix-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 65747 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2010 19:24:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 17 Mar 2010 19:24:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 78872 invoked by uid 500); 17 Mar 2010 19:24:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-felix-dev-archive@felix.apache.org Received: (qmail 78839 invoked by uid 500); 17 Mar 2010 19:24:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@felix.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@felix.apache.org Received: (qmail 78831 invoked by uid 99); 17 Mar 2010 19:24:29 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:24:29 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of heavy@ungoverned.org designates 67.222.39.38 as permitted sender) Received: from [67.222.39.38] (HELO outbound-mail-158.bluehost.com) (67.222.39.38) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:24:21 +0000 Received: (qmail 26076 invoked by uid 0); 17 Mar 2010 19:23:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO host118.hostmonster.com) (74.220.207.118) by cpoproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2010 19:23:58 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=ungoverned.org; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=Smpu1ib6WzEKzaj+IqbFxaH7LjPl5So2J3rcOq3M6Oz54fJ3Udb2kFTV7z0LLIx14WzZw7j9D5GM7shNw+bsTpfQV1by85Bm1RZwCvPXdCgYF3q9K2jwliU/T64x0Znq; Received: from adsl-99-173-13-214.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net ([99.173.13.214] helo=heavyweight.local) by host118.hostmonster.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NryqU-0000ac-A5 for dev@felix.apache.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:23:58 -0600 Message-ID: <4BA12C4C.8020503@ungoverned.org> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:23:56 -0700 From: "Richard S. Hall" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@felix.apache.org Subject: Re: Refactor bundlerepositorty and obr related code from maven-bundle-plugin ? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1027:host118.hostmonster.com:ungovern:ungoverned.org} {sentby:smtp auth 99.173.13.214 authed with heavy@ungoverned.org} X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 3/17/10 12:21, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > One thing I'm struggling with is the number of other projects included in > the maven-bundle-plugin. > It seems we include the whole bindex code, obr plugins, some maven bits. > There are a lot of duplication here. > For bindex, why do we include it ? It is mostly redundant with the > bundlerepository. > We don't include bindex in OBR, so I am not sure how that is redundant. I believe bindex is included in maven-bundle-plugin because it needs to generate repository.xml files from the generated bundle files. -> richard > I think I'm going to refactor the whole thing unless there is something > obvious I'm missing here. > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:32, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > >> Both bundlerepository and maven-bundle-plugin contain similar code >> like the RepositoryImpl, BundleInfo (quite similar to the >> LocalResourceImpl from bundlerepository), repository xml parser, >> etc... >> I think it would make more sense to enhance the ones in >> bundlerepostiory and reuse those from the maven-bundle-plugin rather >> than keep the duplication. >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> Guillaume Nodet >> ------------------------ >> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >> ------------------------ >> Open Source SOA >> http://fusesource.com >> >> > > >