On Monday 05 June 2006 21:29, Thomas Watson wrote: > If I follow you correctly, you are stating that you are not willing to get > > the wicket packages from another bundle. If that is the case then I would > > suggest you not explicitly import the wicket packages. Or is this just > a temporary issue that you hope to allow for in the final version of your > bundle?
ATM, it is not totally clear whether we have covered the cases and are willing to receive the packages from another bundle. I think it will work, and sooner or later we are going to have that sorted out... > I'm picking on your particular example because of the various issues that > need to be considered while using automated tools. If the tools have > unreasonable defaults then many developers will fall into the same issues. Sure. > I think it is vitally important that a developer carefully considers every > package they import because of the ramifications of such a decision. > For example, how does the tool know what version of the package you need? > This becomes even more important if you export that package. Maybe you > export the package at version 2.1 but you can actually use version 2.0 if > it is already available on the framework. I'm not sure an automated tool > will be able to make such developer orientated decisions. Well, computers are dumb. But I am also dumb. Example; how many times have one deployed a system with a missing classpath entry which doesn't trigger until some sysop decides to enable a runtime feature? Classic example; Mail delivery of Log Events. "Oops, mail.jar was not on classpath. Need to take the system down." I'd rather be given an exhaustive list of things that *may* be required, and remove stuff from it, than creating a list from scratch. Maybe that is just me. Perhaps other OSGi veterans can provide some opinion... And I am still stunned by the statement that the framework will not deliver q-1.0 to my BundleC if the exporter of q-1.0 imports q, which is resolved to q-1.1 exported by someone else... Can't find it in the spec to neither confirm nor contardict it either, and Richard's reply is also vague on the point... Cheers Niclas
