I didn't intend to stir up a bees nest... ;-) Interestingly, it is just as important to also offer Vysper (and other components) *without* framework dependencies such as OSGI, Spring, etc.
Personally, I don't like to have to include the extra baggage for Spring, for example, unless truly needed. And in cases where different components require different versions of the framework, we end up with "framework hell" to add to "jar hell" and "bundle hell"... We're looking forward to helping out with this effort! Rick -----Original Message----- From: Bernd Fondermann [mailto:bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:18 AM To: dev@mina.apache.org Subject: Re: Hosting Vysper in a web app On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 13:47, Niklas Gustavsson <nik...@protocol7.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Bernd Fondermann <bf_...@brainlounge.de> wrote: >> That's exactly what meant and what I'd want to avoid: A deployment >> aspect dictating our Java package structure. > > OSGi doesn't really enforce this, but since you choose which on a > package level what you expose to other bundles, it makes sense to put > your public API in separate packages from your internal classes. > Personally I find this to a good practices with or without OSGi (I use > it in all projects) so for me this has been a pretty minimal > annoyance. But, you mileage can vary :-) I agree it's good practice. I'm tentative on actually executing it ;-) > Of course, the other alternative is to expose all packages as public, > which would turn OSGifying Vysper into a 5 minute operation. But, that > would of course mean that everything (in a OSGi environment) would be > treated like a public API. > >> Sorry, I'm a bit harsh on >> this topic, AKA "bundle hell". ;-) > > OSGi has other areas which might be more troublesome to deal with in > brownfield apps (not sure if Vysper counts like one just yet), mostly > around classloading. But, I don't think we need to make any > adjustments here. > > Besides that, I'm more worried about JAR hell than bundle hell ;-) ok, so we are watching into orthogonal directions. that's good :-) Bernd
