Simon Nash wrote:
I was not expecting that there would be something already out there
that we could use "as is". I was hoping that we could collaborate
with other projects with similar needs to produce an agreed set of
bundles that we could all share. This has to be better for the users
than having to deal with n different flavours of jaxb+OSGi jar (etc.)
with no guidance about which of these flavour are compatible or
interchangeable.
It's a great objective to do this work collaboratively - and we should get going on this process
asap, in my opinion.
However, it is also realistic to understand that this will take time - it will not happen overnight.
Are we really going to hold off Tuscany providing OSGi support until everyone else moves with us?
We need something that works now, in my opinion.
1. The build will be harder and messier since existing tools are not
geared to do this
2. The distribution will be messier from an OSGi perspective
3. OSGi will continue to remain a peripheral feature of Tuscany, never
properly integrated since this is not really mainstream.
4. Real bundles provide more flexibility to OSGi users in terms of
substituting 3rd party jars with newer or patched versions of
these, as well
as avoiding classloading conflicts resulting from version constraints.
I understand the first 3 of these points. For point 4, this advantage of
physically repackaged bundles will only be achieved if we can find a way
to share OSGi 3rd party bundles between Tuscany and other non-Tuscany code
that has similar dependencies.
Simon
You seem to be wanting an all-or-nothing approach - why?
OK, so users may not get everything they want in the short term - but they may get 80% pretty fast.
Why isn't that useful?
Yours, Mike.
