qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pete Carapetyan <pete.carapet...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: OSGi version for Java?
Date Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:54:55 GMT
Thanks Sergey, I'm running both client and broker, but this gets me one step
closer.

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:48 AM, <Sergey_Zhemzhitsky@troika.ru> wrote:

>
> Pete, if you need only client to be OSGi-fied take a look here
>
>
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/servicemix/bundles/org.apache.servicemix.bundles.qpid/0.8.0_1/
>
> The following feature for the Apache Karaf should work just fine (please
> let me know if not):
>
> <feature name=*"qpid-client"* version=*"0.8"*>
>     <bundle>
> mvn:edu.emory.mathcs.backport/com.springsource.edu.emory.mathcs.backport/2.2.0
> </bundle>
>     <bundle>
> mvn:org.apache.servicemix.bundles/org.apache.servicemix.bundles.mina/1.1.7_4
> </bundle>
>     <bundle>
> mvn:org.apache.servicemix.bundles/org.apache.servicemix.bundles.qpid/0.8.0_1
> </bundle>
> </feature>
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Sergey Zhemzhitsky
>
>
>
>  *Pete Carapetyan <pete@datafundamentals.com>*
> Sent by: pete.carapetyan@gmail.com
>
> 28.01.2011 05:12
>  Please respond to
> users@qpid.apache.org
>
>   To
> users@qpid.apache.org
> cc
>   Subject
> OSGi version for Java?
>
>
>
>
> I'm using qpid broker and client in an OSGi application.
>
> Few questions regarding this issue:
>
> Is there any demand for qpid in an OSGi version other than my own needs?
> Has anyone else worked on such an issue?
> If I worked on this are there any bundles which should be optional? How
> would one discern them?
> Is there a release coming soon that I should wait for before doing a stale
> release and having to redo it?
>
> It is odd that none of the jars included with either the client or broker
> appear to be OSGi bundles, but the lib directory of the broker includes the
> felix OSGi framework?
>
> Most but not all of the external jars found in the broker are already
> available in OSGi ready releases, so the effort required to accomplish this
> work would be limited.
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message