On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Thomas Vandahl <t...@apache.org> wrote: > 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.
IMO, we are only complicating the situation, because that would only make the situation less clear. Right now, we suggest that the project retains binary compatibility, unless explicitly documented (via package name, and Maven coordinates). Give -- The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
