Do you mean your -1 only apply to extending the behavior of the spec in the J2EE environment, and does not apply to extending the behavior in an OSGi environment ? I'm not sure to completely understand your reasoning.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, I meant to say: > > > On Apr 17, 2008, at 7:11 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 16, 2008, at 8:49 AM, David Jencks wrote: > > > > > > > I'd like to see an example in action before I commit myself but so far I > don't see any problems with this. I assume you have already or will soon > verify this doesn't cause problems with the tck :-) > > > > > > I wonder if a package name with "osgi" in it somewhere would be more > appropriate? > > > > > > There are some specs (jacc for instance) that use a system property to > figure out what to create. I've always thought this was a less than > brilliant idea and wonder if we can do something similar for those. I also > wonder if there is a way to generalize the osgi method so it might work in > some non-osgi environments. > > > > > > > > > > -1 technical veto > > > > These are spec jars and extending the behavior of these jars on an ad hoc > basis is bad and possibly violates the licenses of the JSRs they implement. > > > > > > Regards, > > Alan > > > > > > > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
