Sounds good. I'll go ahead and import the jndi stuff into trunk, keeping the small bundles and adding a standalone one as done in blueprint.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 22:18, Jay D. McHugh <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey all, > > I am thinking (with no real familiarity to OSGi) that it may be > worthwhile to retain the separate bundles in JNDI since the has already > been broken up. Also providing (and using within Aries) a larger > combined bundle would simplify JNDI here. But, if one wanted to swap > out the one namespace handler that is separate - then you could cherry-pick. > > My $.005 > > Jay > > Valentin Mahrwald wrote: >> >> On 1 Oct 2009, at 19:47, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >> >>> I personally would like to propose the following structure: >>> trunk/jndi >>> trunk/jpa >>> I think they should be migrated to maven, package renamed, etc... >>> >>> I also think that where it makes sense, having not too fine grained >>> bundles is better. I don't really see the point in having two >>> separate bundles for the jndi stuff, given both parts will have to be >>> implemented anyway. Or at least, we should do as it's for blueprint, >>> and provide a single bundle in addition to smaller ones if others >>> think it might be useful. >> >> The reason for splitting the JNDI bundles is to allow alternative >> implementations of the osgi:services/ namespace handler without having >> to redo/repackage the core RFC 142 implementation. There is a use for >> this in the IBM code. But I can see that from the point alone of the >> Aries code base it might be neater to stick everything in one bundle. >> >>> Also, for com.ibm.osgi.util, unless there are plans to actually use it >>> in other bundles, i would also include it in the jpa one or at least >>> embed this class as a private package if it will be reused. >> >> There are two other places the com.ibm.osgi.util bundle gets used in the >> IBM code that is not part of the initial contribution, which is why we >> didn't want to put it into the JPA code. But this argument of course >> does not really apply anymore in the Aries code base. >> >>> I'd be happy to help with the maven stuff if needed. >>> >>> 2009/10/1 Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]>: >>>> Hi, I have just committed r820722 - the initial contribution from IBM >>>> [1]. There is a readme [2]. The next step is to discuss & move over to >>>> the trunk. The Software Grant Agreement has been sent to [email protected] >>>> >>>> [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/contrib/ibm >>>> [2] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/aries/contrib/ibm/README >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Jeremy >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> Guillaume Nodet >>> ------------------------ >>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >>> ------------------------ >>> Open Source SOA >>> http://fusesource.com >> > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
