Organization: University of Kassel, FB 16, Software Engineering Group
User-agent: None of your business
Hi Thomas,
My rationale for viewing both seperately was that the osgi.bundle does not depend on the product or any of its dependencies beyond the
bundle's own dependencies. And likewise, for the product it doesn't matter whether it "lives" in one of the bundles it includes or in a
completely different project, as long as all of its dependencies can be resolved.
I have to admit that I only looked at the problem from the perspective of the query, where I assumed it would be clear as what (osgi.bundle,
eclipse.feature...) something is resolved. From that point of view, the eclipse.product would not have to be an extension of either, instead
when resolving as eclipse.product, the osgi.bundle or eclipse.feature meta-data could just be ignored, and likewise the product data when
resolving as osgi.bundle or eclipse.feature.
But I can see how that would probably make generating the cspec for the materialized projects "interesting" ;P
For now, I managed to convince the developer of the plugin in question to move the product spec into a sub directory where Buckminster
doesn't look :)