On Jun 11, 2007, at 8:55 AM, Andy Piper wrote:
At 10:23 PM 6/8/2007, Stanley M. Ho wrote:
Unless I miss something, this is the main use case that import-by-name
would address. Developers can package all the classes related to a
feature (e.g. networking, xml, swing, ejb, etc.) into a module, and it
exports (or reexports from other modules) all the things you need;
other
developers who want to use the feature would simply import that module
by name. In fact, this is how we intend to use the module system to
modularize various components in the SE platform.
Ok so re-export is the key difference from OSGi here then. But this
raises the question, you now have two modules exporting the same
package, so how do you resolve this? Does the module system correctly
reconcile the classes as coming from the same source?
One thing to point out is that OSGi's import-by-module also supports
re-export, so this is not a difference. The main difference between the
two import-by-module concepts is that the OSGi import-by-module also
supports split packages across imported modules, which complicates
things a little more.
As far as figuring out where packages come from, this is somewhat
complicated for the OSGi framework due to split packages, but if it did
not support split packages, then it would be reasonably
straightforward.
-> richard
andy
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may
contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and
affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary,
copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not
the intended recipient, and have received this message in error,
please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
