FWIW the current description of features vs 'complete features' in the OSGi RFP can be found in section 2.4 of [1].
@Robert Munteanu <[email protected]> pretty much what you described :) Best regards, David [1] https://github.com/osgi/design/blob/master/rfps/rfp-0188-Features.pdf On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 12:49, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] >
