On 22.11.2016 21:19, Balázs Zsoldos wrote:
The focus is not on webconsole here or on any tools. Webconsole uses
the current API and this is true for everything else that creates
configuration at the moment. The other thing I wanted to highlight
here: It is much more comfortable to create configuration with a
running OSGi container. We can visualize that we do directly. We see
if we made something wrong, we can have buttons to wire two
configurations together and avoid "CopyPasteException"s. We have the
metatype info and we can enter configuration in a typesafe way with
validation.
On the other hand, writing configurations in files by hand and than
deploy them (e.g.: with fileinstall) feels a bit like programming with
notepad. It can be done, but painful after we have felt the benefit of
using an IDE.
In my opinion there are benefits to both ways. Changing configs online
can be very comfortable with good tooling.
On the other hand there are also systems where you want no online config
changes (like http://martinfowler.com/bliki/ImmutableServer.html). Btw.
this pattern works very nicely with the style you describe where config
is stored in a special source control.
In this case the deployment needs to procure complete configs. Editing
these configs will always happen offline. We still should be able to
provide good IDE support for these configs too. As meta type information
is normally provided in a static way it should be possible to have IDE
support without starting the actual OSGi framework of the user application.
The new functions do not break compatibility. They create a more
flexible way of creating factory configurations as finally it is said
that we can trust the programmers as much that they can create unique
keys within the scope of an application :). However, there will be two
kind of factory configurations from now on. The old and limited one
and the new one that is applicable in more use-cases (one of them can
be distributed, but the other one not). Are you sure we want to have
this distinction? It would be better to have one kind of factory
configuration with more flexibility than now.
I think the main issue here is compatibility. Do you think it would be
possible to have the new factory config style only while being
compatible to old code?
Christian
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
