On 6/11/08, Graham Charters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If we assume one bundle per Tuscany module for developers, perhaps > there's a need for a separate concept that provides a simplified view > for users? The SpringSource Application Platform has the concept of a > library, which has caused much debate in the OSGi world (it has its > own manifest header). A library is a collection of bundles which > gives the developer a single 'thing' on which to depend. At runtime > the concept goes away and just results in Import/Export-Package > statements created through manifest re-writing (the library does not > affect package visibility). I'm not suggesting we use the same > approach, but it just highlights that others a felt the need for an > 'aggregation' concept. > > I wonder if a bundle repository might also provide such a capability, > but I'm not too familiar with things like OBR at the moment.
OBR does provide similar capability, but IMO the problem with all these approaches (OBR, SpringSource library) is that none of them is a standard. I just hope we dont invent yet another one. On the subject of the ExtensionRegistry. This is not a standard OSGi > feature, but I've been told the Equinox implementation should run on > any standard OSGi implementation (e.g. Felix). Is there any reason > why we wouldn't just use the standard service registry? It has all > the features required to manage the lifecycle of new extensions being > installed/uninstalled, etc. You have probably read this already, but others may find Neil Bartlett's discussion useful: http://www.eclipsezone.com/articles/extensions-vs-services/ I dont actually have an opinion, just pointing to the docs. Regards, Graham. > > 2008/6/11 ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > If we are anyway going to require a "launcher" of some form, > >> wouldn't it be just as easy to maintain one-bundle-per-module? > >> > > > > I agree, if we go back to requiring a launcher that changes a lot how > we'd > > could put this together. I'm not at all against requiring a launcher as > that > > does make things easier in some respects, but lets remember why we did > used > > to do this and then chucked it out in the 0.90 rewrite ;) > > > > ...ant > > > -- Thank you... Regards, Rajini
