For configuration, I would prefer any merging and discovery of
configuration files to be done outside of the framework.  EclipseStarter is
still contained in the org.eclipse.osgi jar only for historical purposes,
but I would rather that bit of the code all live in the launcher and it is
the only thing that reads the configuration file directly and installs the
initial set of bundles.  I'm not focusing on that bit of the launch flow
right now because I think it will distract us from focusing on the actual
framework implementation.  Right now the framework gets configuration
through standard OSGi means (using the org.osgi.framework.launch API).

EclipseStarter (and the equinox launcher) read the configuration pass it to
the framework and initialize the framework.  It also installs the initial
bundles from the osgi.bundles list and it takes over the main thread to run
the eclipse application.  This is all stuff that must remain outside the
actual framework implementation.  And just to be clear, I don't consider
EclipseStarter to be part of the Framework implementation.

Tom




|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Pascal Rapicault <[email protected]>                                      
                                                                     |
  
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Equinox development mailing list <[email protected]>,                  
                                                                     |
  
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |09/04/2012 08:34 PM                                                          
                                                                     |
  
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Re: [equinox-dev] About the fwk rewrite                                      
                                                                     |
  
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|






On 2012-09-04, at 10:23 AM, Thomas Watson wrote:



      I will be working on documenting the goals and design of the generic
      model over the coming weeks.  No, I did not rework the way
      EclipseStarter reads config.ini.  EclipseStarter is just a launcher
      (that ends up using org.osgi.framework.launch API).  It still reads
      the config.ini for framework configuration and it still continues to
      install the initial bundles from the osgi.bundles property.  I tried
      to keep this flow so that the new framework implementation could be
      boot strapped without tons of changes to the rest of Eclipse.  For
      example, you should be able to launch a self-hosted eclipse with the
      new implementation from a Juno installation.


I was asking because I thought this could be a nice way to change the way
files are laid out on disk to make them easier to manage (e.g. have
multiple config files that are read and merged at runtime rather than one
file). However this would most likely require changes to p2 and PDE which
is probably way broader than the scope of the work desired here.


      But I did greatly simplify how the framework stores its persistent
      information on disk.  That is really the only part the core framework
      controls as far as layout on disk is concerned.  All other aspects
      are handled by things outside of the core framework (e.g. the plugins
      folder the configuration/ folder etc.).

      For the Felix comment.  Have I thought of just using the Felix
      Framework as is?  Sure, but I think competition is good and I think
      it is in the best interest of Eclipse to continue to have ownership
      of one of the core technologies it is running on.  Also, I want to
      point out that the OSGi Resolver specification is a very small part
      of a proper OSGi Framework implementation.  It is a large leap to go
      from using one small part of the felix project to moving completely
      over to the Felix OSGi Framework implementation.  Also, I should
      point out that the Felix Framework is not currently using the OSGi
      Enterprise Specified Resolver service implementation.  It should not
      be a large amount of work for them to do that but, as of right now,
      the OSGi Resolver service implementation in Felix is a separate
      bundle.  Richard Hall hopes to eventually merge that implementation
      into the Felix framework.


I was curious since after all collaboration may have been as fruitful than
co-opetition. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Pascal



      Tom



      <graycol.gif>Pascal Rapicault ---09/04/2012 06:12:46 AM---I have a
      couple questions about the framework rewrite:
                                                                       
 <ecblank.gif>     <ecblank.gif>                                       
       From:       Pascal Rapicault <[email protected]>             
                                                                       
 <ecblank.gif>     <ecblank.gif>                                       
       To:         Equinox development mailing list <                  
                   [email protected]>,                           
                                                                       
 <ecblank.gif>     <ecblank.gif>                                       
       Date:       09/04/2012 06:12 AM                                 
                                                                       
 <ecblank.gif>     <ecblank.gif>                                       
       Subject:    [equinox-dev] About the fwk rewrite                 
                                                                       







      I have a couple questions about the framework rewrite:
      - Is there a document describing the goals of the rewrite
      - Is there any plan to change how things work on disk? (e.g.
      config.ini)
      - Since we are sharing the resolver with Felix, have we considered
      simply reusing felix in its entirety?

      Pascal
      _______________________________________________
      equinox-dev mailing list
      [email protected]
      https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev



      _______________________________________________
      equinox-dev mailing list
      [email protected]
      https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev

<<inline: graycol.gif>>

<<inline: ecblank.gif>>

_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev

Reply via email to