Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of linsun.unc@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.226 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=WveBnfxljTi5UJjUo0Z3Nlhf5RsQumbtpeWa47heMX7d3KGJfU9b8sNyXC8/n4kQvj
         4+jEmLOiMKrUQAyN4lJin2ty17oz2PjerSXrYu0pH0rUaRABlzPkoSqge9O8+J3j/ejw
         42uiOaTm5PrRlnbAFcVmO8l2eeP3nqHLCCmmU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4B1FEBDD.6030904@gmail.com>
References: <5eb405c70912082027i139d6c3ax4a46dc279fd7455@mail.gmail.com>
	 <add18bc80912091006v1e8f4846sd86b3b70b9c1ecf6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4B1FEBDD.6030904@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:43:23 -0500
Message-ID: <add18bc80912091043t119ebeffp41fb3a9ca4134a8e@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Understanding the "partial=true; mandatory:=partial" trick
From: Lin Sun <linsun.unc@gmail.com>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org, rickmcg@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Interesting.  I used other mandatory attribute without Require-Bundle
fine before.  And "partial" here is just same as other mandatory
attribute, right?

Anyway this should be something quick to try to see if we could avoid
Require-Bundle

Lin

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Rick McGuire <rickmcg@gmail.com> wrote:

> Everything I've seen about using partial=true in the core specification also
> indicates that Require-Bundle is necessary to get everything wired up
> together.  I don't see anything in the core specification that indicates
> partial=true has any meaning on an Import-Package.  Section 3.12.1
> specifically states:
>
> "...only bundles using the Require-Bundle header can have split packages."
>
> Which pretty much states that Require-Bundle needs to be used.
>
> Rick
>
>
>> Lin
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Jarek Gawor <jgawor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The best solution is of course the remove the split package problem in
>>> the first place. But if that's not possible, another solution is to
>>> combine the mandatory attribute trick with Require-Bundle. That is,
>>> bundle 1 exports package X with some mandatory attribute and bundle 2
>>> has Require-Bundle on bundle 1 (and also exports package X). So all
>>> imports on package X would always be wired to bundle 2 and bundle 2
>>> would have access to all classes in package X. Do I have that right?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>