On 05.06.16 20:33, James Carman wrote: > Not quite. OSGi is a special case. It's much more restrictive than simple > J2SE, because it can be. In the general case, the public API for OSGi is > different from the public API for J2SE. Let's not confuse the two.
My intention was to use the OSGi meta data to define something that we consider a public API. I agree to Sebastian that this might be difficult for some components as they were not designed with a separation of public and private API in mind. That's why I believe that suing something a little more restrictive may help us to move forward and improve the situation. Bye, Thomas. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
