> Can you not see that Path would be defined as a utility or not by the bundle > that uses it?
Give me some credit. Of course. > If I use Path, but it is not exposed in my API, then I can treat it as a > utility class. That doesn't prevent other bundles from treating it as a > shared class. It just means we might not use the same version among all > bundles, but for those embedding it because it is not exposed via their API, > this will cause no issues whatsoever for them, nor the sharing bundles. But this still begs the question of how should people make available the "utility" (english meaning of the word) classes that are being shared. Should they be in one bundle? Should each bundle have its own copy but import/export and use "uses"? System designers still face this question. > And if you have a bunch of bundles intending to collaborate around a given > set of types and they all embed their own copies and don't import/export them > (i.e., make them substitutable), then it is really dumb. Its not dumb. it doesn't work. :-) Jeff _______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
