On Dec 18, 2007 12:24 AM, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...I rather see microsling as a > pre-canned (stripped-down) Sling... I agree with microsling being "Sling in a smaller box", but I don't think it is stripped down: if we merge microsling into Sling, all Sling features remain available by activating/configuring/installing them via OSGi bundles. The only difference is that, when starting with microsling, people don't need to know about all these nice features. It's like the fast car with the "yes son you can drive it" green key that gives you only 80HP - if someone gives you the red unlimited key, it's all in there already. In our case, the red key consists of some OSGi bundles that can be installed in microsling, in a way that allows people to pick and choose features that they need and understand. > ...Actual extensibility of this stripped-down microsling may be documented > somewhere, but would be of no issue to users of microsling... Agreed, but (once we merge) it's the same software, and that's the important point. >... We should not forget one thing: microsling is a single project > containing (almost) anything, where as Sling (and the new microsling or > minisling or whatever) will also be built out of multiple projects. I > don't think this is an issues because when we can launch the new > microsling easily, the internals are not really important as long as we > can connect with WebDAV and simply add scripts and data.... By "multiple projects" you mean multiple Maven modules, right? I agree that it's not a problem, provided we deliver an easy to start single jar (or single zip file to expand before running) for microsling. -Bertrand
