On Jul 14, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Hawkins, Joel wrote:
Hmmm. DS is really intended to deal with intra-bundle dependencies,
although there's really no reason it could be applied like you
describe.
In the DS spec, you would make the coupling explict by declaring
component B depended on component A. For OSGi, it's more of a coping
mechanism because the situation you describe kept arising. There's no
magic, really.
OSGi also has a start-level concept that applies to bundles (sort
of the
coarse-grained composites), and of course the bundle dependencies that
can be specified in the OSGi Manifest - people have tried to use these
to control these sorts of implicit dependencies with limited success.
For me, I prefer just coming out as stating them. Honesty is the best
policy? :-)
Yes indeed. Explicit dependencies are always clearest.
Another thing I'm worried about is the looser associations - for
example, two independent services that both need to be running to
support a consumer application. We want to indicate that the
lifecycle is coupled but there is no reference (wire) or other
connection between the two.
The runlevel thing does not tackle that problem - I think we need
something else :-)
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
