(one more ;) On 08.05.2012 17:01, BJ Hargrave wrote: > It has always been so. See the Bundle-Description in the companion code > jars: "Interfaces and Classes for use in compiling bundles"
Yes, fine. Does not preclude runtime use though. > Those packages are then supplied at runtime by the implementation > bundles (which may want to additionally decorate the exports). That was the actual question: where and more importantly why is this embedding & exporting recommended, instead of simply having both consumers and providers refer to one or more runtime-shared bundles containing only the interfaces? I'm genuinely curious. I can see that it makes service provider bundles self-contained (since implemented functionality is also offered), but IMHO that seems more like an outdated concession to manual deployment. Not sure if that's worth the additional complexity of embedding, which seems counterintuitive for a platform that enables safe sharing. I also really hope this does _not_ mean to imply that this approach should be followed by all bundles whose implementations somehow implement interfaces shared with other bundles, only to artificially increase their self-containedness? Because down that path lies huge subsystem madness.. thanks, Holger _______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List [email protected] https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
