I have created issue 2502 for adding the OSGi headers to the groovy jar.
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GROOVY-2502

Dave Dunkin
Technologist
DIS Corporation
800.426.8870


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Dunkin [mailto:DaveD@(protected)]
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 3:39 PM
> To: eclipse-plugin-dev@(protected)
> Subject: RE: [groovy-eclipse-plugin-dev] split org.codehaus.groovy
plugin
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thorsten Kamann [mailto:thorsten.kamann@(protected)]
> > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 2:05 PM
> > To: eclipse-plugin-dev@(protected)
> > Subject: Re: [groovy-eclipse-plugin-dev] split org.codehaus.groovy
> plugin
> >
> > Michael Fraenkel schrieb:
> > >
> > > Let me throw in my $0.02.
> > >
> > > It makes sense to have 2 plugins, one for what is needed for the
> > > groovy plugins and what is needed for the groovy runtime that is
> > > attached to a Groovy Project. Its not clear if we need a separate
> > > plugin for the JARs that make up the groovy plugins. We can
> leverage
> > > what Orbit already provides which would give us a few of the JARs.
> > Yep, this I wrote in my last answer to dave. If all needed deps
> > available as plugins we don't need an additinally plugin. This shoul
> be
> > the goal.
> commons-cli is, but asm and antlr are not. From the Orbit website:
"The
> Orbit mandate does not allow the project to be used for building or
> maintaining third-party libraries that are not approved by the Eclipse
> foundation for us in Eclipse projects." So groovy-eclipse would have
to
> provide the asm and antlr plugins.
>
> >
> > >
> > > The discussion of how many JARs are packaged and the number of
> plugins
> > > seems to be a reoccurring issue since we discussed this 6 months
ago
> > > or so. What is obvious is that there should be the minimum set as
> the
> > > default. I think we can imagine some other pre-packaged
> combinations,
> > > e.g., Grails, etc.. Are these in 1 plugin or many? Having many
> makes
> > > sense if there are other users. I haven't seen many well-known
> > > packagings.
> > We talk about 2 different approaches. One for plugin development
with
> > groovy support and one for the runtime. I think the current solution
> > with the groovy-all-xxx.jar is good enough. There aren't a need for
> > changes. Only the first approcah for the plugin development with
> groovy
> > can be better, so not all libs must be loaded.
> >
> > Thorsten
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thorsten Kamann
> > Software-Architect, Consultant, Coaching
> > Germany, NRW
> >
> > thorsten.kamann@(protected)
> > http://www.thorsten-kamann.de/
> > callto://thorque
> >
> > Fornax-Platform - Platform for developing MDSD-related Tools and
> > components
> > http://www.fornax-platform.org/
> >
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
> >
> >   http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
>
>   http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

  http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email