On 11 March 2015 at 11:36, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > But is it a real problem? > (How are multiple dependent bundles delivered?)
That depends on the build system - in Eclipse I think you make "features" that bundle the bundles (sic). I don't know enough about this side of OSGi as in Taverna we have mainly stayed on the Apache Felix way of using it through Maven. To me it seems to require the classic manual hunting and downloading of dependencies. > apache-jena-osgi is the point for an OSGi bundle aligned to apache-jena-libs > - it can then point to anywhere else. I think it is good to have a simple > "use this, your common cases then just work" point. > > It is a stable external name that indirects to changing internal structure. > If that structure becomes multiple bundles fine - the external point of > indirection stabilises the user experience. I can buy this argument, I'm just pointing out that it's unusual in the OSGi world. We probably might at some point have documentation pointing straight at the *.jar as well. Based on user feedback I think we need to see what is the best delivery mechanism for the bundle (e.g. should it also go into dist/ or some kind of Eclipse P2 repository?) > Technical point: I'm not sure of the value in doing that unless ARQ can > evolve independently to other parts of jena. Adding such cross-module > contracts is more work and reduces our flexibility as we do Jena3. I would hope for Jena 3 to perhaps shrink the number of modules or at least remove any Class.forName() issues. We discussed the possibility of moving some functionality (e.g. should we still have the duality of RIOT and the Model.read/write?) Do we have a branch for Jena 3 so far? Or a wiki page with the plan? Last threads I think was this: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jena-dev/201501.mbox/%3C54C3E57B.2010106%40apache.org%3E http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jena-dev/201501.mbox/%[email protected]%3E Shall I try to summarize this as a wiki plan, and then you can correct my assumptions? :) We possibly should point to that from http://jena.apache.org/about_jena/roadmap.html I would be happy to help out with experimenting with some of the restructuring - as long as that is not like this month. :-) > What model do you have for OSGi users getting binaries if not using > <dependency>? There are several options depending on build/dev system - the most primitive being "Download JAR". > This can be written sometime: > > http://jena.staging.apache.org/download/osgi.html > > The OSGi bundle is new in this release and we can expect it to be refined > over time by user feedback. It's quite possible the main feedback will be > something that we haven't discussed at all. Agreed. More feedback needed - and for that it needs to go out and be tested (and probably broken by someone, somewhere). -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
