osgi | OSGi Utilities -

Acording to this answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/51236918/16651073 tomcat falls back to default logging if it can resolve the location

Can you try to save the properties without the spaces.

Like this: logging.file.name=application.logs

First of all, you shouldn't add any specific configuration if you follow the default conventions. Moreover, parameters like src are not read by the tycho surefire plugin. Moreover, there's no need to create products or features for what you need. The reason why it's not working it's because of a bug: https://github.com/eclipse/tycho/issues/643

On a side note, I've updated the RELEASE notes https://github.com/eclipse/tycho/pull/641 trying to document better the rationale behind the new goal (but, again, it does not work due to a bug)

As can be seen in the comments of the post, my problem is fixed, so I thought I'd collect a closing answer here to not leave the post pending.

The actual solution: As explained here nicely by @UninformedUser, the issue was that I had conflicting maven package versions in my dependencies. Bringing everything in sync with each other solved the issue.

Incidental solution: As I wrote in the comments above, specifically defining 3.3.0 for the maven-assembly-plugin happened to solve the issue. But this was only chance, as explained here by @Ignazio, just because the order of "assembling" things changed, overwriting the conflicting package.

Huge thanks to both for the help.

Some plug-ins contain resources that need to be accessed by other code or by using normal Java file based APIs, so cannot be packed into a jar.

The MANIFEST.MF of a plug-in can specify:

My question is if this is common and what the reason would be to not include the layer structure in some way?

The question is "Does the structure of the code give you any benefit?" and this depends on the programming language you use.

In Java, for example, you have the access modifiers public, protected, private and default (no modifier). The default and the protected allows access within the same package. The protected also allows access in extended classes elsewhere. This means that if you make use of this modifiers you can control the visibility of classes, methods and fields.

Controlling access to classes and class members can make your life a lot easier. I often see that the public modifier is extensively used. This leads to some problems:

1. Developers often introduce dependencies between classes that were never intended, but they are introduced because you could do it.
2. If everything is public the IDE can not support you well. Developers ususally use some kind of auto-completion or they use type searches when writing code. If everything is public, then everything can be accessed from everywhere. Since the IDE will list you all accsessible options, it will show you a long list of entries. Thus public doesn't make life easier. It's also sad but true that as a result of this developers often introduce more packages to organize the code and therefore make it worse by thinking they make it better.

Simon Brown, who wrote the chapter "The missing chapter" in the clean architecture book, says:

The access modifiers in Java are not perfect, but ignoring them is just asking for trouble. The way Java types are placed into packaged can actually make a huge difference to how accessible (or inaccessible) those types can be when Java's access modifiers are applied appropriately. If I bring packages back and mark (by graphically fading) those types where the access modifier can be made more restrictive, the picture becomes pretty interresting.

The diagram is taken from the clean architecture book, chapter "the missing chapter", page 318.

Now you can see the differences between the packaging types. If everything is public they are all effectively equal.

More information can be found here:

• Modular Monoliths, Simon Brown, GOTO 2018
• Separation of api and implementation, René Link, Feb. 2012

I have had similar problem and used version of qpid-jms-client-0.11.1 thats works for me. I get it from this Maven repository

It seems that the simplest approach is to install jar files using mvn install:install-file. Here is a bat-file that could be useful for someone:

It appears as though the http status code of 301 (moved permanently) being returned by the web site is not handled on the Java side. As a workaround, you can add "127.0.0.1 cxf.apache.org" to the hosts file, or block internet access using the operating system firewall.

Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention. I am not subscribed to the AJDT and AspectJ Bugzilla projects, i.e. I only noticed that something is wrong today when reading this question.