Sorry. This is for David's idea:
"I also wonder if there is a way to generalize the osgi method so it
might work in some non-osgi environments."
Another reason to wrap the spec jar in a bundle is that we won't be
seen as extending the spec, something that is explicitly prohibited in
the licensing of the JSRs.
Regards,
Alan
On Apr 17, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
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/
