This could help a lot, too. For me it smells more like a workaround, but I see the advantage of being backward compatible.
*Zsoldos Balázs* Rendszertervező | Software architect +36 70 594 9234 | balazs.zsol...@everit.biz *EverIT Kft.* 1137 Budapest, Katona József utca 17. III. em. 2. http://www.everit.biz I i...@everit.biz Ezen üzenet és annak bármely csatolt anyaga bizalmas, jogi védelem alatt áll, a nyilvános közléstől védett. Az üzenetet kizárólag a címzett, illetve az általa meghatalmazottak használhatják fel. Ha Ön nem az üzenet címzettje, úgy kérjük, hogy telefonon, vagy e-mail-ben értesítse erről az üzenet küldőjét és törölje az üzenetet, valamint annak összes csatolt mellékletét a rendszeréből. Ha Ön nem az üzenet címzettje, abban az esetben tilos az üzenetet vagy annak bármely csatolt mellékletét lemásolnia, elmentenie, az üzenet tartalmát bárkivel közölnie vagy azzal visszaélnie. This message and any attachment are confidential and are legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. Please note that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use of or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the recipient designated above by the sender is unauthorised and strictly prohibited. On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org> wrote: > I think it is reasonable to allow someone to hide exports from the system > bundle, but that doesn't mean that this process couldn't be improved. For > example, we could introduce a new variable ${framework-exports} as an alias > to what the framework exports, so then in our default properties file the > system.packages could be written something like this: > > org.osgi.framework.system.packages= ${dollar}{framework-exports} \ > ${dollar}{jre-${dollar}{java.specification.version}} > > Thus making it easier for people who want to override system.packages by > using our alias. > > Of course, though, if you just want to add stuff to system packages, then > you should be using system.packages.extra like others have suggested. > > -> richard > > > On 10/27/15 10:21 , David Bosschaert wrote: > >> Yes, that's precisely what the >> org.osgi.framework.system.packages.extra was designed for. That way >> you don't need to remember what the framework puts on >> org.osgi.framework.system.packages in order to augment it. >> >> Best regards, >> >> David >> >> On 27 October 2015 at 14:18, Andy Lee <thelees.a...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> If you are trying to extend the set of packages exported by the system >>> bundle, you should use org.osgi.framework.system.packages.extra. By >>> specifying org.osgi.framework.system.packages you are overriding the >>> default value used by the framework, and hence must include the packaged >>> that are expected to be supplied by the framework. >>> >>> See >>> >>> https://osgi.org/javadoc/r5/core/org/osgi/framework/Constants.html#FRAMEWORK_SYSTEMPACKAGES >>> >>> >>> --Andy >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Balázs Zsoldos < >>> balazs.zsol...@everit.biz> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I asked this 1-2 years ago, but I think it is worthy to ask it again. >>>> >>>> Are you sure that the set of system packages should include the OSGi >>>> core >>>> packages? >>>> >>>> In my understanding: >>>> >>>> - system packages are the ones coming from outside of the OSGi >>>> container >>>> - osgi core packages are offered by the framework bundle, but they >>>> are >>>> not system packages >>>> >>>> In practice: >>>> >>>> - If I specify org.osgi.system.packages property for equinox, I do >>>> not >>>> have to define the packages implemented by the framework >>>> - If I specify the same property for felix, I must copy-paste the >>>> packages of osgi.core always >>>> >>>> Do you think there is a use-case when osgi.core packages offered by the >>>> framework should be excluded from the exported packages of the system >>>> bundle? I think Equinox has the right behavior here. >>>> >>>> Do you see any chance to change this behavior in the future? >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> *Balázs **Zsoldos* >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org > >
