> I think it is crucial that bundles run out of the box and not require > you to chase other bundles to get it to work. This first level > experience is > quite important. Just doubling the number of bundles because you might > have > to stop a bundle does not like the right trade off to me. > > In the OSGi build, all the implementations care the interfaces they > implement > so they always run out of the box so setup is simplified.
It is important to simplify consumption. Agreed. However, personally I don't find this to be a motivating argument here. In our experience writing large OSGi-based systems it is relatively rare that a bundle implementation is self-contained so putting the API with the impl still does not give you just one bundle you can install and run. Instead I would prefer to see people use a comprehensive provisioning mechanism (insert shameless plug for p2) rather than sacrifice architecture or flexibility. This is not to say that putting API with impl is wrong, just that the "out of the box" argument does not work for me. Jeff _______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
