Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-felix-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 82537 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2010 16:17:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2010 16:17:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 79732 invoked by uid 500); 23 Mar 2010 16:17:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-felix-dev-archive@felix.apache.org Received: (qmail 79696 invoked by uid 500); 23 Mar 2010 16:17:19 -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 79688 invoked by uid 99); 23 Mar 2010 16:17:19 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:17:19 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gnodet@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.227 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.220.227] (HELO mail-fx0-f227.google.com) (209.85.220.227) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:17:11 +0000 Received: by fxm27 with SMTP id 27so6404105fxm.28 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:16:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=qUq5ZqLmPlWYnB15OxJY+2qpb1XmLGiv+A4eBghmIP4=; b=x1WybE1oJpAF/2r81Om93mmrt9d1oEA+Y/pdLK5XIwFKI5Q246DJo7U4ZJKxaEY++T 4zqzGYj4rQQtzPhYITMJg/vl24XRyFxm6xIrOwDr4inSmQVwInih3ouBkO5AZDlxfLId qaXuJWN2pFYte8evuK39/gIbj1jVJoh806VZ8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=E5eIsfOyla8h7lw+lCkR64tmCiWDc4u7uitiGK5tM8K8YgOcGB25SdZCLicpdMTkUe Hnq6tswFuYsFjhaG4VMAmvuCmfL4BIRHCG2Eme6zUQdYLu3/5d9aR6QvMLqPyJd00NPb O4YqX57BvHCXk23uKYDkJOUiLM177a0fB1+bk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.60.142 with SMTP id p14mr6778415fah.47.1269361011109; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:16:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BA8D0BA.7070309@alcatel-lucent.com> References: <4BA8D0BA.7070309@alcatel-lucent.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:16:51 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: OBR.resolve(NO_LOCAL_RESOURCES) From: Guillaume Nodet To: dev@felix.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015173ff00a28b13c04827a24f5 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --0015173ff00a28b13c04827a24f5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Not sure to understand what you're doing exactly. Local resources don't have any uri at all and I don't think that has changed. If you use the NO_LOCAL_RESOURCES flag, your resolution should not contain any local resources, only resources from repositories which should all have a valid uri. Can you give a bit more details ? On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 15:31, Arjun Panday wrote: > Guillaume (i believe this is for you), > > I'm still testing the new bundlerepository from the trunk.. > I noticed recently that, when i use the NO_LOCAL_RESOURCES flag in the > resolver, all the local resources required by my resolution have a null URI. > My intent when using NO_LOCAL_RESOURCES is purposely to NOT ignore the > resources present in my resolver's framework and to extract a "pure OBR" > resolution, independant of the framework instance that computed it; > therefore i need all the computed resources along with their URIs with > respect to the OBR location. > > Can you please look into this? Do you agree with my interpretation of the > NO_LOCAL_RESOURCE flag? > > Thanks, > Arjun > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com --0015173ff00a28b13c04827a24f5--