| Re: [aspectj-users] aspectjrt.jar OSGi manifest |
From your background description on the projects, BND seems a good choice. I don't really have a strong preference.
cheers,AndyOn 18 January 2013 05:42, M. P. <freebsd@xxxxxx> wrote:I'm asking because SpringSource Bundlor has been discontinued. The current stuff has been moved to Virgo and will not be a separate package as far as I understand.
http://www.springsource.org/bundlor
On the other hand BND is not going away any time soon, plus I think it has a bigger community. I have some experience with BND and I know it can generate "uses" directives which are not easy to add manually.
Of course it is up to you. AspectJ's bundles are simple enough so it doesn't really matter which tool is used.
I'd like to ask you to make this decision then I'll play with the build for a while and will get back to you with either a patch or questions :)
Regards
M
> Hi,
> My preference for bundlor was only because I knew the team that wrote it and could hassle them directly with questions :) but really whatever works is fine.
> There was a nightly build (cruisecontrol driven) running on the eclipse servers but since we moved from CVS to GIT last year it hasn't been resurrected - another thing on my todo list ! Right now I tend to do adhoc dev builds now and again and upload them, in between the full releases (a 1.7.2 release isn't too far away, it'd be great to get the OSGi manifests done for that).
> cheers,
> Andy
> On 15 January 2013 23:34, M. P.
> wrote:
>
>
> Great.
> So as far as I understand you prefer Bundlor over BND?
> Now that you mention the build process, is there a periodic build running?
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> > Yep, that is ok with me and ideally what I'd like to do. My hesitancy about it is just because I am aware that the build process is not a fun place to work at the moment so it may not be as straightforward as you imagine...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Andy
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On 15 January 2013 02:59, M. P.
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Looks like this is a slight misunderstanding.
>
> > I meant to use BND or Bundlor in the build script to generate the manifest every time. And test the resulting OSGi bundle in a real OSGi runtime just once (manually, before this is committed).
>
> > Is that OK with you?
>
> >
>
> > Thank you.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Hi,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I'd be ok with a one time manual test to verify it is basically correct. I previously used bundlor but was not in a position to verify the output so I never committed it. Ideally I wanted to integrate bundlor invocation into the build process so that when occasionally a new package is added or one deleted, the manifest stays in step. Rather than just run bundlor once and commit those fixed manifests. However, if a 'one off run' is simplest then I'd be ok to use it for aspectjrt.jar as the package set for that hardly ever changes.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > cheers,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Andy
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > On 11 January 2013 11:11, M. P.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > I'd assume they have an environment in which to verify the correctness of what is being created.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Do mean an automatic test suite or one-time manual testing?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Automatic tests would be very nice but they would require serious machinery such as the OSGi runtime.
>
> >
>
> > > And maybe these bundles (aspectrt, weaver, etc) are simple enough so that it is safe to assume that tools such as BND and Bundlor generate valid manifests?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > What do you think?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Thanks.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > The weaver also needs one (and I suppose it does no harm to get it right for tools and matcher too).
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > This has long been on the list of TODOs (see bugs like
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=338034) - I even prototyped the implementation with bundlor (
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
> http://www.springsource.org/bundlor). I created some basic versions for testing but I don't believe the users got back to me about whether what was being generated was correct. Traditionally users just seemed to go the EBR and collect the versions from there which had had their manifests regenerated. I'd be happy for someone to take this on and sort it out properly for AspectJ, I'm more than happy to help them progress it - I'd assume they have an environment in which to verify the correctness of what is being created.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > The AspectJ build process is a bit arcane, which can make something you'd think would be easy, rather tricky, but I'll help a brave soul battle through that.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > cheers,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Andy
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On 10 January 2013 06:51, M. P.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> The aspectjrt.jar does not have a valid OSGi manifest at the moemnt. It would be nice if it did.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> In order to make it OSGi compliant the manifest should get a few more headers such as Export-Package.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> I saw that the aspectjrt.jar manifest is generated from this file
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
> http://git.eclipse.org/c/aspectj/org.aspectj.git/tree/aspectj5rt/aspectj5rt.mf.txt
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> Since the packages listed in Export-Package should have versions adding this header to the manifest template is problemat because when the version placeholders are replaced with the real values the format of the manifest may become invalid.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> So how do you feel about generating the manifest in the build script via
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
> http://ant.apache.org/manual/Tasks/manifest.html?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> Thanks.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >> aspectj-users mailing list
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > _______________________________________________
>
> >
>
> > > aspectj-users mailing list
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > aspectj-users mailing list
>
> >
>
> >
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >
>
> >
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
>
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users