Also +1 for the two interfaces
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Agree for the two interfaces. > > Regards > JB > > On 03/09/2011 08:08 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >> >> I think for #4 it would make sense to use two interfaces. >> >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 01:58, David Jencks<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I went ahead and committed this, let me know if there are any problems. >>> It works fine for me so far.... >>> >>> I found the answer to (1) and (2) (feature event exports them) I >>> think.... haven't had time to update for (3) and I'm still wondering about >>> (4). >>> >>> thanks >>> david jencks >>> >>> On Mar 4, 2011, at 5:02 PM, David Jencks wrote: >>> >>>> I spent a little time moving the jaxb tree for features.xml into >>>> features core and getting it to work with features core. (and then a lot of >>>> time trying to figure out how to get it onto my github branch. I think >>>> it's >>>> on the "master" branch at https://github.com/djencks/karaf/branches) >>>> >>>> I have a few questions. >>>> >>>> 1. Why are the feature structure interfaces (Feature, BundleInfo, etc) >>>> exported from feature core at all? >>>> >>>> 2. If they really need to be exported, is there a good reason to use >>>> interfaces rather than the jaxb classes? >>>> >>>> 3. The schema allows 0..unbounded details elements since its an optional >>>> member of a choice group. The original classes only allow one detail. I >>>> guess we want to only allow one detail element? >>>> >>>> 4. There's only one Feature interface for both a complete feature (top >>>> level in features element ) and a dependency feature inside a feature >>>> element. The second one is more of a feature-ref since it doesn't have any >>>> actual contents for the feature. I think it might be reasonable to have >>>> two >>>> interfaces so as to distinguish these more easily. >>>> >>>> Does anyone want to review this or should I just go ahead and commit it? >>>> >>>> thanks >>>> david jencks >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >
