Alex and Neil are correct. Equinox has had the concept of generic capabilities and requirements for some time (with defined Eclipse-GenericRequire and Eclipse-GenericProvide headers). The concept only recently got standardized in the R4.3 specification with the new Require-Capability and Provide-Capability headers. Note that I don't think Felix has a release of the R4.3 specification as of yet, but it should be coming very soon. I recommend you move any bundles which use the old equinox specific headers over to the new standard headers. But keep in mind this means that bundle will only resolve properly when using Equinox 3.7 or higher. In other words an implementation of the R4.3 OSGi Framework.
Tom
From: Neil Bartlett <[email protected]>
To: Equinox development mailing list <[email protected]>
Date: 08/19/2011 08:02 AM
Subject: Re: [equinox-dev] Custom manifest headers
"Incompatibility" is a strong word. To me it would mean an inability
to create bundles that work the same across different framework
implementations.
The fact is, it's always been possible to create different behaviours
by using extensions like Eclipse-BuddyPolicy, Eclipse-LazyStart, etc.
But it's also always been possible to create bundles that behave the
same across Equinox, Felix and other frameworks, by sticking to just
the standard headers. So the frameworks are still compatible.
Of course this picture is complicated somewhat by the existence of
different spec versions…
Regards,
Neil
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Kirchev, Lazar <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I was experimenting with some bundles on Equinox and Felix and I observed
a
> case when one and the same bundle would start on Felix, but not on
Equinox.
> The reason was a custom manifest header, Eclipse-GenericRequire. Since
this
> is Eclipse-specific header, Felix ignores it and starts the bundle,
although
> there is no bundle providing such capability. Equinox detects that no
bundle
> provides the capability and does not start the bundle.
>
>
>
> I was wondering doesn’t this represent an incompatibility between the
OSGi
> implementations?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Lazar
>
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
<<inline: graycol.gif>>
<<inline: ecblank.gif>>
_______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
