Or even something like Equinox's p2 support.  It allows you to publish bundles and collections of bundles and manage dependencies on arbitrary capabilities and requirements.  To a certain degree you can do similar things with OBR it is just harder to create the metadata and the capability namespace is not (AFAIK) extensible.  See
    http://wiki.eclipse.org/Equinox/p2

Jeff

Stuart McCulloch wrote:
2008/9/24 Yvan Royon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sorry to bump a 4 month old thread...

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 09:18, Peter Kriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The whole problem with modularity is the -granularity-. If you make the
> granularity too small you end up with too many artifacts to comprehend.
> If you make it too large you do not get the desired mix and match behavior.

Compare this with recursive component models, say, Fractal. Maybe SCA
fits the bill also.
With these systems you have composite components and unit components.

A unit components contains actual code (impl, api, whatever). It can
be as small as the developers' smallest unit of reuse.

A composite component embeds unit components and/or other composite
components. It allows you to package and distribute your code: the
whole app is a composite, then inside are composites that relate to
different parts in the design of your application, then ... etc. You
ony need a single component to deploy the whole application, whether
it is a SimpleHttpClient or the whole HugeAndComplex IDE. It is thus
much simpler for an end-user or admin to browse a catalogue and to
choose an application to deploy.

The way I see it, an OSGi bundle tries to fit both granularities at
the same time.
Thus, it is up to the packager to choose one or the other, or a little
of both, and it can be ugly.

In my opinion, OSGi (or maybe just OBR and the shell service) needs a
way to express "group-of-bundles-that-go-together-to-form-a-useful-app",
so that developers and packagers can express both granularities.

perhaps something like this :)

   http://www.osgi.org/javadoc/r4/org/osgi/service/deploymentadmin/DeploymentPackage.html

although there's still plenty of scope for further development / tooling...

--
Yvan Royon
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev

--
Cheers, Stuart

_______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev


_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev

Reply via email to