[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [osgi-users] Possible mistake in Feature spec?
|
Hello,
your description of F-R-B is correct. Please feel free to open an PR to
the Spec that describes it in better that the existing description.
```
Is there some way a Feature itself can define extra requirements or
capabilities that I'm not seeing?
```
We had a point in the spec process where we had an Prototype of Req and
Cap of Features. But in the discussion we realized that currently there
are not enough valid use-cases to be sure to bake it into the Spec. Most
cases I had end with the decisions that a Bundle holding the Req and
Cap would be the better way. Would be nice to discuss this with you here
- or better - in the next spec call! I Think David Bosschaert would be
also interested in hearing your use-cases.
regards,
Stefan
On 27.05.22 12:12, Mark Raynsford via osgi-users wrote:
On 2022-05-25T17:01:50 +0100
David Bosschaert <david.bosschaert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Mark,
Features can be complete which means that they provide all their
dependencies, or they can be non-complete which means that they have
requirements and imports that are not met by the feature itself. In the
latter case the feature depends on another feature to provide these
capabilities.
So I think the sentence is fine. The dependency is not a 'require-bundle'
type dependency where another feature is required by id or name, its a
declarative requirement-based dependency based on what the bundles, and
possibly the feature itself declare as their requirements and which are not
addressed by the features constituents.
Hello!
I've got to admit... I'm not completely clear on this. If I'm
understanding correctly, a Feature may be "incomplete" in that it may
have requirements that aren't met by the set of bundles listed in the
Feature itself.
I'm not seeing anywhere in the spec that allows the Feature itself to
declare extra requirements or capabilities, so I'm interpreting this to
mean that there may be, for example, a feature F that contains a set of
bundles R where some bundle B in R may have requirements that aren't
satisfied by any of the other bundles in R. The implication would be
then that there might be some other feature G somewhere else that would
fill in the remaining requirements of F. I'm not sure how anyone would
know how to find G.
If that is the right interpretation, then I think the sentence a "a
feature may depend on another feature" is a pretty loose interpretation.
Is there some way a Feature itself can define extra requirements or
capabilities that I'm not seeing?
