Relationship to JSR 291 [was: Re: Bryan's comments]

[Stanley M. Ho]

Hi Richard,

Richard S. Hall wrote:
> This is definitely true, but this was only introduced in R4 and is still
> intended to be the exception, not the norm...from my understanding, 277
> defined the norm in the opposite direction.
>
> Ultimately, if we are making the same assumption, which is that people
> will generally be exporting all public classes from a package and only
> occasionally filtering some classes that should not be public, and we
> are promoting this as the best practice, then we are at least in the
> same ball park.

Whether people will be exporting individual exported public classes or
exporting all public classes from a package but excluding a few specific
classes is simply a syntax issue; the result is still a set of "exported
public classes." I think as long as we have the same concept of
"exported public classes," we are in the same ball park.

> Well, effectively all OSGi dependency resolution comes down to packages
> at some point, so if we are going to use 277 modules at all in the OSGi
> framework, then we have to have some way to determine their set of
> exported packages, which is necessary for determining consistency.

Sounds reasonable.

- Stanley