> Hi, > > Thanks for the message and your work regarding remote services! Looking > forward to your implementation! > > >> So to summarize: What Transport system should I implement? ZeroMQ and >> introduce a dependency and maybe a legal issue. > > > For me this is still unclear. So hopefully one of our mentors can advice. > The referenced page mentions including LGPL code, are we (Celix) including > any of this? Or do we expect the user to install ZeroMQ and do we only > "include" header files in our code? If so, is it then allowed? If not, why > is "including" GCC headers allowed? They are GPL, not even LGPL. > > I do think however that is important that we do not distribute any of the > ZeroMQ code, or binaries which are static linked with ZeroMQ. > > As said before, I am not sure, hoping that any of our mentors can help us > out here. > > >> A message queue system >> from the list above? Or build it in TCP? >> > > From a technical point of view there is nothing wrong with having multiple > implementations. The current Remote Services code doesn't make this > simple, > but I'd like to invest some time in a more pluggable system for this. > But for now a new RemoteServiceAdmin implementation can be made.
For the implementation I plan to completely remove mongoose from the RemoteServiceAdmin and make the RSA use a Transport service, which should be a new bundle to take care of the whole transport of the data. I will post a more detailed plan on this as soon as I have selected the message queue/transport system. > > As for an alternative, using an existing implementation might be > worthwhile, especially when we want to connect to Java OSGi. This implies > the system has to have a C and Java binding/implementation (which isn't a > problem if I look at the list). > > But having a dependency on a large third party system might as well be a > drawback in some cases. It creates an additional dependency for the user. > For example, I assume all of the messaging systems require some server to > be setup/started. For larger and real life systems I don't think this is a > problem. But for someone who is just interested in OSGi, Celix and > remoting > this might be an issue. > > So from that point of view I'd love to see a "configuration-less" solution > (ie, no external setup/config other then in Celix self). But I also > welcome > a more complex solution with an existing message system. > > So I think this mostly depends on your own needs/time. > For a "configuration-less" solution either TCP or ZeroMQ would work since they don't need a broker running. ZeroMQ does need the library to be on the system running the RSA but installing is takes about 7 steps. The other systems all have a broker or some other application that needs to be running on a system to handle the queue's. > -- > Met vriendelijke groet, > > Alexander Broekhuis > Met vriendelijke groet, Erik Jansman
