Hi, I have been very bussy, so sorry for the late reply, but thanks for your interest!
> > But I have a question ? Why making the native implementation only directed > to C and C++ and not making these specs for *native* implementation as in > terms of native in languages other than Java in which on OSGi compliant can > be implemented not intended to run over the JVM ? > We've discussed this as well, the original Universal-OSGi RFP targeted several other languages as well. But from our point of view we like to keep the focus fairly limited (for the time being). The mentioned projects all use C/C++ so this is where the most knowledge lies, adding different languages only broadens the scope and makes it more difficult to get some work done. We need more people onboard (with knowledge of that specific language), which makes it more difficult to discuss items etc etc. Also, we need a specification which explicitly details how several problems are solved in a certain language. Especially the dynamic loading of bundles and bundling itself needs attention. For other languages this is solved differently as for C/C++ (even though C and C++ are different languages, the dynamic aspects are solved in the same manner). So I personally think it makes more sense to create a separate specification for other languages (language groups) detailing the specific aspects of that language. Some overall document detailing the generic aspects of OSGi would make sense in such case. But for now, this is not our goal, I think we will have enough of a challenge with the current path we selected/set out. -- Met vriendelijke groet, Alexander Broekhuis
