On May 8, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > (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 offered), but IMHO that seems more like an outdated concession to manual 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
_______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List [email protected] https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
