On Jul 14, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
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.
Wouldn't a composite be a way of expressing that association?
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
