We had a similar discussion in the OSGi expert group about this and
basically came to a similar conclusion.
Now, in the first version of our code base in Sling we distinguished
between a feature and an application, where an application was a
complete feature. We dropped the application concept as it was not
really adding something new. The only thing really needed is some kind
of a marker as you suggest.
There are some aspects to consider:
- framework launch properties: while a feature can have framework
properties, only a complete feature can define framework launch
properties. Not sure if we have to model something here or just hope
that people do the right thing when defining their features
- what exactly does complete imply? can it be launched with other
features? etc. I guess we just need to define this.
Regards
Carsten
Am 09.11.2018 um 13:41 schrieb Robert Munteanu:
Hi,
I am wondering if it makes sense to mark a feature as 'complete'. A
complete feature would be one that is expected to be launched
individually, e.g. needs to additions to function.
I would see the benefits mainly in tooling:
- a complete feature is self-contained, therefore all requirements must
be satisfied
- a non-complete feature may not be launched, so don't try to do that
Thoughts?
Robert
--
Carsten Ziegeler
Adobe Research Switzerland
[email protected]
