it's the same thing and IMHO it's worse than specifying it all in a special file, like plugin.xml or something. because when you tell users they need to create a plugin.xml file which has such and such structure it's less prone to errors than specifying service parameters. basically there is no dtd for service parameters, but you can have dtd for your own plugin.xml files.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Richard S. Hall <[email protected]>wrote: > On 06/11/2009 08:59 PM, Dmitry Skavish wrote: > >> >>> >>>> Either way, you need some bits specified by someone somewhere to >>>> >>>> >>> differentiate who should be getting what. I am not sure why using service >>> properties for such a purpose would be any more or less artificial than >>> any >>> other approach. >>> >>> In your example here, extension A could say, "I will only consume Command >>> services with service proprty 'foo'," while B would do something similar >>> for >>> service property 'bar'. Either way, someone has to declare this info if >>> you >>> want to filter on it. >>> >>> >> >> >> yes of course I can do it this way. I was just curious if there is a >> "better", more structured way in DS or OSGi itself. something similar to >> those extension points, like specifying a "target" for my services >> >> > > I don't see why specifying a "target" is any more or less structured than > using service properties to specify a target. Seems like it is just a > different name for the same thing. > > -> richard > > -- Dmitry Skavish
