Well the whole commons stack now has support for OSGi and OSGi provides
a mechanism to not export a package so I'd say one should use the
internal package (e.g. org.apache.commons.lang.internal) for all classes
that have to be public but are not part of the public API.
This is better than usin
I think we should ask the felix people what can be solved with OSGi and
what can not.
Tom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Tom Schindl schrieb:
I can feel your pain. Thank god I'm using OSGi and can declare my
dependencies explicitly :-)
Yep. Well, it works for those libs that are just int
I can feel your pain. Thank god I'm using OSGi and can declare my
dependencies explicitly :-)
I'm also +1 for changing the package name because one can not assume
that everybody is using Felix, Equinox or other OSGi-Envs.
Tom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
James Carman schrieb:
On Wed, Jun 11,
kage right?) they are not having
because of OSGi.
Tom
Torsten Curdt schrieb:
Not everyone is using OSGi ...so I doubt this is really an option to
prevent a package shift.
My 2 cents
--
Torsten
On 21.01.2008, at 09:13, Tom Schindl wrote:
Hi,
Couldn't this OSGi-adoption made by some c
Hi,
Couldn't this OSGi-adoption made by some commons packages make the
package shift for java5 unneeded?
With OSGi one can run different versions in the same JVM so its not
needed any more.
Tom
Niall Pemberton schrieb:
On Dec 28, 2007 2:39 PM, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
T
What a great idea this would be nice for me as RCP developer because
currently I have to create my
own bundles from the commons-packages.
Tom
Carsten Ziegeler schrieb:
Hi,
the products of commons are highly used throughout many projects.
It would be great, if the projects here at Apche Commo
