Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Yang Lei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:09 PM
To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Improving support for running in OSGi
> I think enabling OSGI can help modularity with a clear definition of
> package visibility, so we can have a much cleaner "module"
> dependencies through osgi bundle import/export on package. I think
> it will help Tuscany adopters a lot in the scenarios such as: when
> implementing new implementation type, binding type, or data binding
> types, there is clear indication which set of packages can be used
> (exported API/SPI ). So upgrading to new Tuscany level can be as
> simple as plug and play if there is no API/SPI changes, and version
> control (multiple version co-existence) can also be made available
> through OSGI capabilities.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yang
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Konradi, Philipp (CT)
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > I'd like to get people's thoughts on whether the idea of
> > > 'promoting'
> > > OSGi is a good one,
> > IMHO support of OSGi is very important and I glad to see increasing
interest of the community here.
> >
> > > and get ideas on how best to proceed.
> > I personally have currently not a very deep insight into
> > implementation
details yet, but we are currently prototyping and have there also OSGi
services.
> > What I could offer today is only to feed our findings about
> > limitations
and rooms for improvement back.
> > Another important thing which I see on the horizon, is the ongoing
standardization of Distributed OSGi (RFC119) and the benefit to support
that
standard in Tuscany's OSGi bits. So from mid-term perspective I suggest
to
keep an eye on that as well.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Philipp
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Graham Charters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Gesendet: Montag, 28. April 2008 09:48
> > An: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > Betreff: Improving support for running in OSGi
> >
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'd like to get more involved in the OSGi support in Tuscany (both
> > the
> > modularity work (itest/osgi-tuscany) and the implementation.osgi). I
> > recently started looking at the work to run Tuscany in OSGi, embodied
> > in itest/osgi-tuscany and described in the thread entitled
> > "Classloading in Tuscany". I've noticed a couple of others on the
> > list also interested in Tuscany running in OSGi and wondered if it
> > might be worth considering making this a "first-class" option. At
> > the
> > moment the five bundles are only built by folks who want the OSGi
> > support and go into the itest/osgi-tuscany directory to create it.
> > This can result in any problems being discovered late, but also could
> > create the impression that OSGi is considered a second-class
> > environment (which I don't believe is the case).
> >
> > Aside from the obvious benefits to OSGi users in doing this, I think
> > there's a potential for Tuscany to use the OSGi build as a test-bed
> > for highlighting and working through modularity issues, which would
> > also benefit Tuscany in general, not just in an OSGi runtime.
> >
> > I'd like to get people's thoughts on whether the idea of 'promoting'
> > OSGi is a good one, and get ideas on how best to proceed. We could
> > then start discussing what some of the issues might be (e.g. size of
> > builds, time to build, etc...).
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Graham.
> >
> >
>