On Feb 8, 2008 6:20 AM, Jeff McAffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We've been suffering from this "framework tainting" for quite sometime > now. Equinox ships many bundles/services that work on other frameworks > (as well as ones that work without OSGi at all!). The Equinox community > (well at least me) would like to participate in figuring out a way to > depict or communicate the state or expectations of bundles. > > In my ideal world this information would be somehow included in or > associated with the bundles so that website tables could be > autogenerated and provisioning systems could filter accordingly. I can > see a lot of issues in setting this up but also feel it is worthwhile to > do and to do in sort of common approach so the OSGi community gets a > consistent picture.
Thats sounds like a very interesting idea. There is some data available already in the manifest of a bundle but adding a pointer to a standard documentation extension would be nice. Maybe we could make it something that could point to something inside the bundle or to a remote location (that way a bundle could come with or without it). It sounds like this could be potentially something that could be combined with OBR as well, no? regards, Karl > Jeff > > > Richard S. Hall wrote: > > Stuart McCulloch wrote: > >> also the subproject documentation that is there is (imho) not visible > >> enough > >> ( have to click Documentation->...um...->Subproject > >> Documentation->aha... ) > >> > >> perhaps we could add a direct link to the subprojects page from the main > >> page? > >> > > > > Yes, something like that would be a good idea too. Our menu on the > > side is getting a little long, though, so perhaps there is some way to > > shorten it to make it more useful, e.g., grouping related items into a > > new page so that they only have one link in the menu. > > > >> yes - a matrix of bundles against frameworks/EE would be really cool > >> and we > >> could perhaps find a way to display it on the main page (in reduced > >> form, so > >> it doesn't takeover the whole page, but shows our bundles can be used > >> with > >> many other frameworks) > >> > >> each sub-project page could have a banner at the top with specific > >> results > >> > > > > Yes, exactly my thinking. > > > >> +1 for something like a matrix, but I'm no good at web-design ;) > >> > > > > Me either and currently lack any time. > > > > -> richard > > > >> -> richard > >> > >>> Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Jan 15, 2008 8:32 PM, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Further, I am not really certain about what is being said here. This > >>>>> thread seems to imply that if we did "rm -rf framework" in our trunk > >>>>> directory, then it would be possible for our bundles to be seen as > >>>>> framework independent and good OSGi citizens. However, since one > >>>>> of our > >>>>> subprojects happens to be a framework implementation, then all of our > >>>>> subprojects are tainted and seen as "Felix-only"? Is that right? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> I think the situation is a bit more complicated. We have the same > >>>> > >>> problems > >>> > >>>> in ServiceMix where we have both a JBI container and JBI components. > >>>> I think users are tempted to assume that there is an implicit tie > >>>> > >>> between > >>> > >>>> the runtime and the services provided. OPS4j does not provide any > >>>> OSGi > >>>> runtime, thus, it easier to look at it as independent of the runtime. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- Karl Pauls [EMAIL PROTECTED]
