On Monday 05 June 2006 21:29, Thomas Watson wrote:
> If I follow you correctly, you are stating that you are not willing to get
>
> the wicket packages from another bundle. If that is the case then I would
>
> suggest you not explicitly import the wicket packages. Or is this just
> a temporary issue that you hope to allow for in the final version of your
> bundle?
ATM, it is not totally clear whether we have covered the cases and are willing
to receive the packages from another bundle. I think it will work, and sooner
or later we are going to have that sorted out...
> I'm picking on your particular example because of the various issues that
> need to be considered while using automated tools. If the tools have
> unreasonable defaults then many developers will fall into the same issues.
Sure.
> I think it is vitally important that a developer carefully considers every
> package they import because of the ramifications of such a decision.
> For example, how does the tool know what version of the package you need?
> This becomes even more important if you export that package. Maybe you
> export the package at version 2.1 but you can actually use version 2.0 if
> it is already available on the framework. I'm not sure an automated tool
> will be able to make such developer orientated decisions.
Well, computers are dumb. But I am also dumb. Example; how many times have one
deployed a system with a missing classpath entry which doesn't trigger until
some sysop decides to enable a runtime feature? Classic example; Mail
delivery of Log Events. "Oops, mail.jar was not on classpath. Need to take
the system down."
I'd rather be given an exhaustive list of things that *may* be required, and
remove stuff from it, than creating a list from scratch. Maybe that is just
me. Perhaps other OSGi veterans can provide some opinion...
And I am still stunned by the statement that the framework will not deliver
q-1.0 to my BundleC if the exporter of q-1.0 imports q, which is resolved to
q-1.1 exported by someone else...
Can't find it in the spec to neither confirm nor contardict it either, and
Richard's reply is also vague on the point...
Cheers
Niclas
|