Honestly I would prefer utils to be a bundle but it is also ok like it is.
Christian
On 13.03.2013 16:19, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
No Christian, don't take my wrong: I mean that sometime all (and I
include myself in all) we think that we do something simpler, more
elegant, but for the others, it's not ;)
Karaf utils is a good example I think.
Regards
JB
On 03/13/2013 04:16 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
On 13.03.2013 16:01, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
I think that on trunk we made some progress in the way that you
describe. For instance, unlike that we have in Karaf 2.x, modules on
trunk are structured like this:
- core provide OSGi services
- commands use the core services
- MBeans use the core services
- an end-user can use core services if he wants
Fortunately trunk is a little simpler already:
- core contains OSGi services and mbeans (the mbeans are only registered
as osgi services)
- commands contains the commands and uses the core services
This simplification is an example of how we can reduce the number of
modules without sacrificing maintainability. We might need an improved
aries jmx where an admin can switch on and off jmx mbeans but apart from
this I think the structure is fine.
I'm not fully agree with Christian. OSGi doesn't mean that we have to
expose all as OSGi, for instance, it doesn't make sense for Karaf
utils (we are not in a developer bullshit approach where we turn all
in OSGi just for "fun" or "elegance", we have to keep things simple,
maintainable, and coherent).
I hope you do not really mean to say my opinion is a "developer bullshit
aproach". My main focus is exactly to keep things simple, maintainable
and coherent. Just more from a developer point of view than an admin
point of view.
Christian
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com
