Agree for the two interfaces.
Regards
JB
On 03/09/2011 08:08 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
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
