Isn't OSGi now distributed? See Fuse 4.0. Sent from my iPhone
Michael McGrady Principal investigator AF081_028 SBIR Chief Architect Topia Technology, Inc Work 1.253.572.9712 Cel 1.253.720.3365 On Feb 12, 2011, at 3:03 AM, Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote: > Niclas Hedhman wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote: >> >>> Note that I too develop using Java 5 language features, so I'm not placing >>> any constraints on where River's headed, I accept recent developments, >>> people have their goals and dropping 1.4 compatibility seems the easiest way >>> to achieve them. >>> >>> I would encourage people to open their minds to the investigation of modular >>> development, Java 7 and 8 are around the corner and the same thing will have >>> to happen for Java 5 at some point. >>> >> >> Doesn't these paragraphs capture the need for a new specification? A >> standardized way to specify the "Minimum Runtime Requirement" for the >> Service Proxy, so that lookup operations can ensure that clients only >> find compatible proxies... >> Not only would JRE variant be needed, but potentially also OS, network >> features, and if you envision Android client deployment down the line, >> > > Actually I've investigated the Android option, no RMI classes I'm afraid, the > security models also different, so it would definitely be a break with > compatibility. Still there's no reason such a thing couldn't be created and > some sort of bridging service utilised. > > Yes I've wondered how a service might communicate what platforms it supports > or what version bytecode it's jar archive contains (eg dalvic or whatever > they call it, bytecode version 48, 49 etc) or even let the client select from > a list of archives based on it's platform, there's no reason the service > can't provide alternatives. You could use an Entry for services, but that > wouldn't work for Discovery, where you'd just have to discard incompatible > registrars and try again. It would be pretty easy to set different groups > for different Java OS versions etc. It's an interesting road...the potential > is here, but I get the feeling people just want to focus on the particular > platform they're interested in at the moment. > >> you would probably also like to include incl/excl of GPS, camera, >> compass and other physical devices and their respective properties >> (e.g. resolution, accuracy,...) >> >> > > Hmm a GPS entry... My main focus is to continue encouraging people who take > the time to read the code and ask questions to get involved, so we grow our > pool of developers, who knows this sort of thing could be taken up as people > become more familiar with River, or new interested devs join. > >> (Forgive me if I have missed this and this is already part of the core >> specs.) >> > That's cool, it isn't. > > Cheers, > > Peter.
