Hi Alex... On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Alexander Broekhuis <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi, > > I have been very bussy, so sorry for the late reply, but thanks for your > interest! > No problem :) > > > > > 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. > I see your point, thanks for the thorough explanation :) > > > -- > Met vriendelijke groet, > > Alexander Broekhuis > -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour ---- "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving" - Albert Einstein
