I'd rather not make it (the OSGi metadata) the "source of truth".
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:49 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. > > Bye, Thomas. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
