sebb wrote:
> I thought that was what was wanted for the HC dependencies?
>
Not quite. It certainly makes sense to enforce the lowest compatible version,
for instance 4.1 = 4.1.2 - good, 4.2 - good, 4.0.1 - not good)
OK, in that case presumably this needs to be added to the OSGI headers.
What I don't understand is why one would need a separate archive for
the OSGI stuff.
Adding OSGI headers to the jar files will not make much difference to
the size, and will only affect OSGI deployments.
True, but this is not about size of the jar files. I always thought that
OSGi was about addressing the so called Jar Hell issue and a way to deal
with transitive dependencies, not just a bunch of extra manifest
entries. To me the whole point of OSGi is that OSGi bundle != jar file.
I can well be wrong, though, and open to alternative approaches.
Oleg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
