Hi, BJ.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:26:37 -0400
BJ Hargrave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BJ> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2008/06/04 04:16:16 AM:
BJ>
BJ> > I understand what Peter and BJ mean and I agree in the point that no use
BJ> > case where you need EXPORT but not IMPORT package permission.
BJ> >
BJ> > On that basis, in my opinion, changing the description of section 3.5.4
BJ> > as follows would be less inconsistent:
BJ> >
BJ> > [R4.1]
BJ> > > "In order to be allowed to import a package (except for packages
BJ> > > starting with java.), a bundle must have
BJ> PackagePermission[<package-name>,
BJ> > > IMPORT]."
BJ> >
BJ> > [new] (as in R3)
BJ> > > In order to be allowed to import a package (except for packages
BJ> > > starting with java.), a bundle must have
BJ> PackagePermission[<package-name>,
BJ> > > EXPORT| IMPORT].
BJ>
BJ>
BJ> Actually this change would be incorrect. A bundle only has to have PP with
BJ> the IMPORT action. Since the EXPORT action implies the IMPORT action,
BJ> having PP with EXPORT action satisfies the requirement in the spec.
I understant the logic for writing specs.
If other guys who read the spec understand this correctly,
I don't think the spec needs to be rewrite.
See you in Berlin :-)
---------------------
NTT Cyber Solutions Laboratories
Ikuo YAMASAKI
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TEL +81-46-859-8537 FAX +81-46-855-1282
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
