Sahoo wrote:
> Paul Sandoz wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Sahoo wrote:
>>
>>> Jakub Podlesak wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:08:38AM +0530, Sahoo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That bundle is an implementation artifact and is not to be used by
>>>>> applications. Since applications can't always use the version of
>>>>> ASM that server requires, we have to hide the version that server
>>>>> requires. We do so by using those extra attributes. Only people
>>>>> who deploy OSGi bundles can use that bundle if they suitably
>>>>> specify the import headers in their bundles, but that does not
>>>>> apply to normal web app deployment.
>>>>
>>>> I am in fact adding a Jersey based module
>>>> to GlassFish, so that users could deploy Jersey based apps without
>>>> a need
>>>> to bundle additional jars into their wars.
>>>>
>>>> So i believe there are two possible ways how to resolve the asm-3.1
>>>> dependency
>>>> for Jersey module here:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Jersey module would use the required GlassFish specific attributes
>>>> in the ImportPackages header for the asm related packages
>>>>
>>>> 2. I would provide an OSGified asm 3.1 module and put it into
>>>> GlassFish modules.
>>>> It shouldn't create any conflict with your privately updated
>>>> [asm-all-repackaged.jar]
>>>> module, as you use a GlassFish specific attributes in it's OSGi
>>>> headers
>>>> Is my assumptions correct?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes, they are correct. If you can use #1, then better as it
>>> increases sharing of classes.
>>>
>>
>> #1 would make the Jersey module GF specific,
> Not really. Specifying that extra attribute in Import-Package does not
> make it GF specific.
It will only work with exporters that have 'password="GlassFish"'...so
it just depends on how you define GF specific.
-> richard
>
> Thanks,
> Sahoo
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>