Hello,

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1897 creates a set of bundles
to enable Tuscany to be run inside an OSGi runtime. At the moment, there are
five bundles:

   1. org.apache.tuscany.sca.api.jar              18,701
   2. org.apache.tuscany.spi.jar                   430,563
   3. org.apache.tuscany.runtime.jar            538,660
   4. org.apache.tuscany.extensions.jar     1,374,045
   5. org.apache.tuscany.depends.jar       57,872,558

I would like to split the 3rd party bundle first and then possibly the
Tuscany extensions bundle. Ideally I would like to have bundles which match
the jar files provided in "distribution" so that OSGi manifest headers can
be added to the jars in "distribution" enabling a binary Tuscany
distribution to be run under OSGi.

I would like to satisfy as many of  Sebastien's use cases (
http://marc.info/?l=tuscany-dev&m=119326781123561&w=2) as possible. But I am
not sure what the granularity of the bundles should be if we want to have
the same set of jars for both an OSGi and non-OSGi distribution. More fine
grained jars provide better versioning under OSGi, but requires the
maintenance of more package dependencies in the manifest files. Would it be
better to group related 3rd party jars together (eg. all Axis2 related jars
into one bundle) where each jar belongs to one and only one bundle?

Any thoughts on what the Tuscany distribution should look like (should it
continue to be the current list of jars, or should related jars be grouped
together), and on the granularity required for versioning when running
Tuscany under OSGi are appreciated.


Ant,

Would it be possible for you to provide a list of third party jars used by
each extension? Since maven dependencies in the extension/pom.xml include
the dependencies for testing (sometimes without a scope), I am not sure if I
could use a dependency list generated by maven.


Thank you...

Regards,

Rajini




On 10/25/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/25/07, Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> This does imply splitting both Tuscany extension bundle
> > and the big 3rd party bundle, into smaller chunks. Because of its size,
> I
> > am
> > more inclined to split the 3rd party bundle into smaller bundles first
> > (though I have no idea where to start with this huge big list of jar
> > files).
>
>
> I can help with that, after doing lots of releases i've a good
> understanding
> of what each jar is for and what uses it. How about starting with whatever
> bundle make up is easiest for you and then we can juggle things around to
> get to something everyone is happy with.
>
>   ...ant
>

Reply via email to