On 12/6/06, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Steven E. Harris wrote:
> But weren't we just talking about this policy a few days ago?¹ Richard
> commented that such behavior is intentional and beneficial.
>
I think that is a different issue, but at this point, I am uncertain. :-)
That link is discussing package interoperability and substitutability.
That's a different issue from what we're discussing in this thread,
IMHO, since when you've already commited to using a plain jar for a
specific dependency and chosen to embed it into the bundle (like we
propose), then you've already chosen to give up on that nice OSGi
pluggability[1].
Cheers,
-EE
1] So yes, Richard and Peter: I do realize that what I and Aaron
propose is in many ways contrary to the vision of OSGi. I'm with you
on that one. It sucks to hard couple bundles to a certain
implementation of a dependency, which is the end result of our
embedding scheme. But I don't think it's counter-productive towards
fulfilling the vision. While we're waiting for a world of properly
designed bundles rather than arbitrarily designed jars, we must have a
way to efficiently and incrementally migrate towards that vision.
That's why I, today, would like to be able to embed jar files in my
bundles and that's why I, today, prefer Require-Bundle to
Import-Package when I assemble my internal products. But hopefully I
won't for too long.
