Hi, Am Dienstag, den 03.06.2008, 17:31 +0300 schrieb Jukka Zitting: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am Dienstag, den 03.06.2008, 17:14 +0300 schrieb Jukka Zitting: > >> I'm trying to understand the issue, do you have an example of a case > >> where this would be troublesome? > > > > It is not directly troublesome, more like annoying - and sometimes really > > confusing. > > > > I cannot rememeber exactly what problems compile type dependencies pose, > > but at one time I had log4j dependencies which just blew out because the > > defined compile type dependencies too generously. > > Yeah, there are quite a few cases where libraries are too eager to > bring in optional libraries as hard dependencies. A good example is > the recent log4j 1.2.15, see > http://yoavs.blogspot.com/2008/05/caution-log4j-1215-brings-in-bunch-of.html. > > Anyway, if your component depends for example on log4j 1.2.15, it's > much better to explicitly exclude such transitive dependencies than to > mark the entire log4j dependency as optional and then work around that > in the bundle packaging.
Right. But if I include the code into the bundle as and internal implementation detail (which would be the case for log4j would I include it in the osgi/log bundle for example), I would mark the dependency as optional, because it is noone's business what the bundle internally uses and hence the dependency is neither anybobdy's business. Regards Felix
