Thanks BJ,
I think I got it... but I have another doubt...
In the case of extender bundles (that is implemented using
BundleTracker)...
the unique way that I have to ensure that it don't miss any
extendee/contributor is through the setup of a proper low start level ?
regards,
Cristiano
On 03/10/13 15:04, BJ Hargrave wrote:
Implementing resolver hooks, service hooks, etc for the Subsystems
specification. You need to make sure the hook implementations are
operating before normal bundles to ensure the proper isolation is in
place.
Most developers should not be implementing framework extensions.
--
*BJ Hargrave*
Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
OSGi Fellow and CTO of the _OSGi Alliance_ <http://www.osgi.org/>_
[email protected]_ <mailto:[email protected]>
office: +1 386 848 1781
mobile: +1 386 848 3788
From: Cristiano Gavião <[email protected]>
To: OSGi Developer Mail List <[email protected]>
Date: 2013/10/03 13:48
Subject: [osgi-dev] RFC 204 - Framework Extension Activators doubt
Sent by: [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
I'm reading the RFC 204 and something is not clear in my mind.
Initially I was thinking it would be useful to other specs that uses
Extender concepts as OSGi JPA, DS or Blueprint that needs to be
activated before any other bundle. But at the end of the reading I
haven't sure... :)
Could someone give some real, practical use cases of such spec/api ?
thanks in advance.
regards,
Cristiano
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
[email protected]
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
[email protected]
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
[email protected]
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
