I think for #4 it would make sense to use two interfaces. On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 01:58, David Jencks <[email protected]> wrote: > I went ahead and committed this, let me know if there are any problems. It > works fine for me so far.... > > I found the answer to (1) and (2) (feature event exports them) I think.... > haven't had time to update for (3) and I'm still wondering about (4). > > thanks > david jencks > > On Mar 4, 2011, at 5:02 PM, David Jencks wrote: > >> I spent a little time moving the jaxb tree for features.xml into features >> core and getting it to work with features core. (and then a lot of time >> trying to figure out how to get it onto my github branch. I think it's on >> the "master" branch at https://github.com/djencks/karaf/branches) >> >> I have a few questions. >> >> 1. Why are the feature structure interfaces (Feature, BundleInfo, etc) >> exported from feature core at all? >> >> 2. If they really need to be exported, is there a good reason to use >> interfaces rather than the jaxb classes? >> >> 3. The schema allows 0..unbounded details elements since its an optional >> member of a choice group. The original classes only allow one detail. I >> guess we want to only allow one detail element? >> >> 4. There's only one Feature interface for both a complete feature (top level >> in features element ) and a dependency feature inside a feature element. >> The second one is more of a feature-ref since it doesn't have any actual >> contents for the feature. I think it might be reasonable to have two >> interfaces so as to distinguish these more easily. >> >> Does anyone want to review this or should I just go ahead and commit it? >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> > >
-- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
