if it is included in the framework jar, how easy would it be to replace it with another implementation at deploy time?
( don't know if this is a likely scenario ... just wondering ) On 22/05/07, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thomas Watson wrote: > Here are a couple of reasons a Framework may want to include the > ServiceTracker: > > 1) The Framework uses the ServiceTracker to implement things like > the URL Handlers Service Specification. The Framework could have only > used ServiceTracker internally and not exported it for others to use. > Felix doesn't use ServiceTracker. > 2) Performance enhancements can be made to ServiceTracker to > use Framework specific features. In this case the version > of ServiceTracker exported by the Framework should be used for > performance reasons. > Agreed. 3) Other frameworks do it, so it effectively becomes the defacto standard way of doing it. :-) -> richard > Tom > > > "Richard S. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/22/2007 07:22:32 AM: > > >> Should Felix start including ServiceTracker in the framework JAR file? >> >> Up until now, it has never been included because the framework doesn't >> use it, so it is just extra cruft and can easily be downloaded >> separately. However, it appears that other frameworks make it available >> by default. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -> richard >> > >
-- Cheers, Stuart
