Normal versioning rules will take care of the backward extensibility.
If these extensions happen, we bump the framework to 1.4 (which will
likely happen anyway and bundles will express their need of
org.osgi.framework;version=1.4
Thanks, kind regards,
Peter Kriens
NH> +1 on the suggested new stuff.
NH>
NH> During initial discussion on the CPEG call the idea was brought up to
NH> create an extension model for the filter. This would allow third
NH> parties to add operators. I am not fond of this idea because it makes
NH> the presence of operators very fuzzy, it is hard to get popular
NH> operators when the presence of the operator depends on other installed
NH> bundles.
NH> -1 on "operator extensions" (I can't shake the ghosts from C++
NH> operator overloading days), but more -0 for "function extensions"
NH> especially if that is combined with some type of "namespace" so
NH> that the platform can deny deployment if extension is not installed.
NH> Cheers
NH> Niclas
NH>
--
Peter Kriens Tel +33467542167
9C, Avenue St. Drézéry AOL,Yahoo: pkriens
34160 Beaulieu, France ICQ 255570717
Skype pkriens Fax +1 8153772599
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
osgi-dev@bundles.osgi.org
http://bundles.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
