This is a point that interests me. It reminds me of the GOB idea that Niclas brought up some time ago, an idea which I think exposes a natural usage pattern of bundles.
I can envision a few layers of abstraction. Obviously, on the first level, there is the bundle. This is already handled very well by the various implementations (KF, Felix...). Above that, is the GOB. I interpret the GOB as being a kind of super bundle, but can be thought of abstractly as simply a bundle. Above that, though, I see the application level. An application is composed of bundles and GOBs. A system could have 1:n applications. Of course, what's interesting about this type of application as opposed to a "regular" application is that it again "implements" (as a matter of speaking) the bundle concept, so can interact with other applications. It is simply an extra level of abstraction. I guess in this sense it is a kind of synonym for a super-charged service. Each level of abstraction (bundle, GOB, application, each of which is actually an OSGi bundle) can declare its own method for publishing docs and other artifacts. For example, at the bundle level, this could be published for in-house development. The GOB level could be published publicly for developers, or as part of an SDK. Otherwise, only applications would be published for the users. Another point would be to have a configuration bundle for each application. Ideally, it would be managed by the runner and would allow configuration of the application. The application could declare configurable properties to the configuration manager. Not yet sure how this would fit into the Pax Runner, though, as I've still not had the time to catch up with you guys! In any case, generally speaking, it seems that ops4j does not yet have a focus. Perhaps our focus could be on the usability of OSGi-based systems. Pax Runner could be the encapsulation of natural design and usage patterns that we discover along the way. On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 21:27 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > > On 9/14/06, Peter Neubauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now, > PaxRunner boots up, but I need to create the initial bundle > file. What > is the current thinking on that, are we going for Initial > provisioning > manifest format or POM.xml wth it's inherent problems or some > custom > XML? > > I don't know ;o) That is why I am fooling around with the GData > idea... > > > Cheers > Niclas > > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
