On 7/24/09 12:35 PM, David Savage wrote:
To lay my cards on the table, I kinda like resolve=compile as it dove
tails kinda neatly with resolution=optional, but equally it seems
kinda bizarre to be adding another dimension to this whole problem
when people are worried about the complexity of OSGi. If there is a
way to do this without exposing developers to it that would be /great/
but as with OSGi I don't think we should worry about doing the right
thing at the base layer IDE tools and other schemes can always
simpilify this whole space down again to joe blogs. I guess it's a
question of what is "right".
So I guess the end result of this email is, what are your thoughts?
* Is resolve=compile a good idea?
* Should it be resolution=compile?
* Any other options?
Isn't this some form of "uses" constraint? Middle exposes Top because it
inherits from it, so if you follow transitive "uses" constraints you
could possibly assume that compile-time access is needed.
* What to do about fragments?
I don't think the fragment issue should be handled, since that is a
bogus use case for fragments from my point of view. Fragments are
intended to be optional extensions to the host, but in this case the
host is fibbing about its contents because it expects to have a fragment
attached to it. In reality, the fragment should have the exports, not
the host.
-> richard
* Is anyone still there (i.e. has this email lost you all?)?
Regards,
Dave
