Interesting. I used other mandatory attribute without Require-Bundle fine before. And "partial" here is just same as other mandatory attribute, right?
Anyway this should be something quick to try to see if we could avoid Require-Bundle Lin On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Rick McGuire <rick...@gmail.com> wrote: > Everything I've seen about using partial=true in the core specification also > indicates that Require-Bundle is necessary to get everything wired up > together. I don't see anything in the core specification that indicates > partial=true has any meaning on an Import-Package. Section 3.12.1 > specifically states: > > "...only bundles using the Require-Bundle header can have split packages." > > Which pretty much states that Require-Bundle needs to be used. > > Rick > > >> Lin >> >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Jarek Gawor <jga...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> The best solution is of course the remove the split package problem in >>> the first place. But if that's not possible, another solution is to >>> combine the mandatory attribute trick with Require-Bundle. That is, >>> bundle 1 exports package X with some mandatory attribute and bundle 2 >>> has Require-Bundle on bundle 1 (and also exports package X). So all >>> imports on package X would always be wired to bundle 2 and bundle 2 >>> would have access to all classes in package X. Do I have that right? >>> >> >> > >
