> Thanks to whoever did that! You're welcome :-)
> Should I open an enhancement request to add a REMOTE type and attach a > patch to contribute an addition/change? (e.g.): I will open a bug in OSGi to fix that. In the interim just use the numerical value 5. > One question: does this framework change appear somewhere else in the > r4.2 spec? (i.e. other than 119)? As it seems to imply that RFC 119 > isn't stand-alone (that is, it requires this small addition to framework). 119 relies on come changes in 4.2 (e.g. ServiceHooks). ServiceException is one of them. > Are there conventions about this (placement) that dictate what > package(s) these interfaces should be in? If so, where is that? These should already be in one of the jars from OSGi. Tom? -- BJ Hargrave Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance [email protected] office: +1 386 848 1781 mobile: +1 386 848 3788
_______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
