On Fri, 2018-11-09 at 13:12 +0000, David Bosschaert wrote:
> 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
> :)

Ah OK. I should've read that first :-)

Thanks,

Robert

> 
> 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]
> > 


Reply via email to