Simon Nash wrote:
See inline.
Simon
ant elder wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
ant elder wrote:
> (cut)
So this branch is really a fork isn't it?
...ant
Is that a question or a statement? I don't really understand how you
come up to that conclusion.
It's not a fork, it's a branch to work through breaking changes (and
pretty complex changes I must say) which should allow our runtime to
correctly work as a set of modular bundles in an Equinox/OSGi
environment.
I'm hoping that this work can somehow benefit Tuscany, by providing
code, patterns or maybe just a set of techniques that the project
can implement to work in Equinox/OSGi. It'll be up to the Tuscany
community to take a look and decide what can be reused or if it's
just something to study and learn from.
If the focus is purely on OSGi/Equinox support, this sounds fine to me,
with the resulting code/patterns/techniques eventually getting applied
to trunk. If it includes other restructuring or changes, I'd prefer to
see this kind of thing done in trunk as far as possible so it's easier
for the whole community to participate.
At the moment that Equinox port is still pretty broken, I've made
changes to start to clean up the dependencies on
assembly.builder.impl and contribution.service.impl for example, but
there are many other similar cross-bundle dependencies on
implementation packages which will take time to clean up.
When this is working, will it imply a hard dependency from Tuscany on
Equinox, or will there still be a way to run Tuscany outside of the
OSGI/Equinox environment?
Simon
-- Jean-Sebastien
I guess what i'm still not understanding is why can't the most of this
happen in trunk? For example - "clean up the dependencies on
assembly.builder.impl and contribution.service.impl for example, but
there are many other similar cross-bundle dependencies on
implementation packages" - all of that is applicable to the trunk code
and has no dependencies on the OSGi changes so why not just do it from
the start in trunk?
...ant
Here's how I'm approaching this work at the moment (although the
approach may change as I make progress, resolve issues or run into new
issues).
- Correctly running in OSGi requires significant restructuring and
refactoring of the Tuscany runtime. It's not just about dependencies on
OSGi APIs or changing how a few classes get loaded, it's also about
making sure that cross-bundle calls go through defined and exported
SPIs. We had well defined SPIs for a while but a lot of code has gone
around the SPIs, instead of evolving the SPIs when needed and that has
gone for about 18 months, so there's many examples of that. Now when you
try to run this stuff in OSGi, it just breaks as OSGi is not going to
allow you to go around the package visibility rules (and putting the
whole runtime in a few big bundles that import/export everything is not
really serious or interesting).
- That restructuring would probably break trunk for a few months while
we work through ways to refactor it. So, I'm trying to contribute enough
of the refactoring and the code patterns that work well in OSGi in the
sca-equinox branch now, to make it easier to do it in trunk when trunk
is ready for it. I'm hoping that we'll then be able to do this work
without breaking trunk too much and too long, since we'll have something
to look at and reflect on in the branch. It's always much easier to do
things a second time, when somebody has already been through the pain of
exploring it for you and you can take a look at the result. That's what
I'm trying to do now to help the project.
- You've already asked a similar question about 'a dependency from
Tuscany on Equinox', I've looked up my earlier response for you as it
has not changed: http://marc.info/?l=tuscany-dev&m=122274696224651
--
Jean-Sebastien
