Stuart McCulloch wrote:
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 )
You should still be able to load a different version of it in a separate
bundle.
-> richard
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
>>
>
>
