[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [equinox-dev] Support for RFC 119

> Thanks to whoever did that!

You're welcome :-)

>   Should I open an enhancement request to add a REMOTE type and attach a
> patch to contribute an addition/change? (e.g.):

I will open a bug in OSGi to fix that. In the interim just use the numerical value 5.

> One question:  does this framework change appear somewhere else in the
> r4.2 spec? (i.e. other than 119)?  As it seems to imply that RFC 119
> isn't stand-alone (that is, it requires this small addition to framework).

119 relies on come changes in 4.2 (e.g. ServiceHooks). ServiceException is one of them.

>   Are there conventions about this (placement) that dictate what
> package(s) these interfaces should be in?  If so, where is that?


These should already be in one of the jars from OSGi. Tom?


--

BJ Hargrave
Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
OSGi Fellow and CTO of the
OSGi Alliance
hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx

office: +1 386 848 1781
mobile: +1 386 848 3788