A simple library bundle would likely just export the packages it wishes
to share.
Not all bundles need to provide services. Services decouple bundles from
implementation details, enabling multiple providers and dynamism.
Package sharing is another valid form of bundle collaboration, it is
just a little less flexible. That doesn't mean it should be avoided
completely, nor can it.
Now if you thought you might have multiple implementations of these
utilities that you wanted to swap out dynamically, then defining
services might make sense. But even at the package level you can have
multiple implementations, it only means that swapping out
implementations is slightly more traumatic on your system.
-> richard
On 11/30/10 6:51 PM, Wesley Silva wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently migrating an existing web application to OSGI. During
the process I saw the utility package, where there are classes to
manipulate things like date, strings, files, cryptography and so on.
Almost all web applications in my company have this kind of package so
I was wondering if it was a good idea to turn it into a reused piece
of software.
So here is my question, is it a good idea to turn it into a bundle? If
so, how would this bundle look like? Would it publish some
service thought interfaces or just export packages? Any suggestions?
--
Att,
Wesley
MSc Candidate in Software Engineering
Specialist in Test Analisys (CIn/UFPE - Motorola)
B.S. in Computer science - UFS
Sun Certified Java Programmer
Sun Certified Web Component Developer
_______________________________________________
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
