Simon Nash wrote:
... snip
I believe that if we are serious about making OSGi-enablement of
Tuscany a
first class option, we should consider doing 1). For the longer term to
support versioning of 3rd party jars, 1) will provide a standard OSGi
mechanism. As more and more 3rd-party libraries are being
OSGi-enabled, this
can be seen as an intermediate step which enables users of Tuscany to
install Tuscany in the same standard OSGi way, into an OSGi runtime.
I agree and think we should do (1) everywhere we can.
I don't think Tuscany should modify third-party jars that we
are redistributing as part of Tuscany. I think we should use
some variant of (3) for all third-party jars that aren't
already OSGi-enabled.
Can you say why?
May you could look at what other projects that have spent time working
on OSGi are doing. Two examples:
- servicemix 4
- springsource app platform
There's probably more good examples out there.
--
Jean-Sebastien
