Yes, indeed - I would even go that far that we should allow to overwrite or metadata/bundle headers. Todays provisioning model allows for example to change the bundle symbolic name. With a general approach you could even include a plain jar and add the missing metadata through the feature model without explicitly repackaging the jar.
I'll add something to the requirements Carsten Dominik Süß wrote > Good point - I just had to think of star imports that make it impossible to > declare the dependency vector purely based on the metadata > > Cheers > Dominik > > Oliver Lietz <[email protected]> schrieb am Mi. 21. Feb. 2018 um 16:07: > >> On Tuesday 20 February 2018 16:48:08 David Bosschaert wrote: >>> Hi all, >> >> Hi David, >> >>> Over the recent past some additions have been made to the requirements of >>> the Sling Feature Model. The updated requirements can be found here: >>> >> https://github.com/apache/sling-whiteboard/blob/master/featuremodel/readme.m >>> d >>> >>> Any additional requirements, let us know! >> >> the readme says in section "Requirements and Capabilities of Artifacts": >> >> "The feature model does not allow to explicitly list requirements or >> capabilities for artifacts. An artifact, for example a bundle, contains >> this >> information as part of its metadata." >> >> Some bundles (from Sling and Oak also) do not provide proper metadata and >> it >> would be quite useful to add missing capabilities in the model until the >> artifacts are fixed (if that ever happens). >> >> Regards, >> O. >> >>> I'm hoping to start contributing to the implementation of some of these >> in >>> the near term and was wondering - is there a reason why the feature model >>> still in the sling-whiteboard? Or would it make sense to put it in its >> own >>> Sling git repo or repos? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> David >> >> > -- Carsten Ziegeler Adobe Research Switzerland [email protected]
