Hi Guillaume,

Out of curiosity, why do you think OSGi fragments are not a good solution
in general?

As for everything, they have their use case, right? Or is there a reason to
avoid them altogether, beyond one's liking or disliking of the technique?

Thanks,
Raúl.
On 16 Nov 2015 15:18, "Guillaume Nodet" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I really don't see the point of using fragments.  Fragments are not a good
> OSGi solution in general.
> The easiest way forward (even instead of using fragments) would be to use
> an uber-jar imho.
> At least, it has the benefit of limiting the code changes and locating all
> the OSGi stuff in a single module.
>
> 2015-11-16 11:48 GMT+01:00 Raul Kripalani <[email protected]>:
>
> > Once again, I do suggest you explore the OSGi Fragment route.
> >
> > I haven't digged into the Artemis source, but if your modularity scheme
> > consists of modules that provide classes and resources to a central one,
> it
> > could fit well.
> >
> > This is the strategy I'm using with certain modules to OSGify Apache
> > Ignite.
> >
> > It also resolves the split package situation quite elegantly without
> being
> > a workaround (depending on the rationale of the split packages to begin
> > with).
> > On 16 Nov 2015 03:15, "artnaseef" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > How much work are we talking to get Artemis properly OSGi-ready?  An
> > > uber-jar
> > > is a work-around.  If nothing better can be accomplished, then we may
> > have
> > > to live with it in the near-term, but it is important to understand
> what
> > > challenges are driving us toward a work-around.
> > >
> > > Also, we have an individual showing interest to make this happen, so
> > let's
> > > encourage that effort!  Thank you Guillaume.
> > >
> > > I may be a bit tainted as these days I'm spending large amounts of time
> > > refactoring code and eliminating the impacts of work-arounds and
> > shortcuts.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > View this message in context:
> > >
> >
> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-OSGi-support-for-Artemis-tp4703943p4703972.html
> > > Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to