Hi Rajini, couple of comments below 2008/6/11 Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 6/11/08, Graham Charters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> If we assume one bundle per Tuscany module for developers, perhaps >> there's a need for a separate concept that provides a simplified view >> for users? The SpringSource Application Platform has the concept of a >> library, which has caused much debate in the OSGi world (it has its >> own manifest header). A library is a collection of bundles which >> gives the developer a single 'thing' on which to depend. At runtime >> the concept goes away and just results in Import/Export-Package >> statements created through manifest re-writing (the library does not >> affect package visibility). I'm not suggesting we use the same >> approach, but it just highlights that others a felt the need for an >> 'aggregation' concept. >> >> I wonder if a bundle repository might also provide such a capability, >> but I'm not too familiar with things like OBR at the moment. > > > OBR does provide similar capability, but IMO the problem with all these > approaches (OBR, SpringSource library) is that none of them is a standard. I > just hope we dont invent yet another one. >
RFC 112 covers the design for a Bundle Repository (inspired by OBR) so is some way along the path to being a standard. This might make the OBR approach a safer bet. > On the subject of the ExtensionRegistry. This is not a standard OSGi >> feature, but I've been told the Equinox implementation should run on >> any standard OSGi implementation (e.g. Felix). Is there any reason >> why we wouldn't just use the standard service registry? It has all >> the features required to manage the lifecycle of new extensions being >> installed/uninstalled, etc. > > > You have probably read this already, but others may find Neil Bartlett's > discussion useful: > http://www.eclipsezone.com/articles/extensions-vs-services/ > I dont actually have an opinion, just pointing to the docs. > Yes, but thanks for the pointer. It's an excellent article. My comment was less about the technical pros/cons of each approach and more about the standards aspect, although the technical aspects need to be considered. > Regards, Graham. >> >> 2008/6/11 ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Rajini Sivaram < >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > <snip> >> > >> > If we are anyway going to require a "launcher" of some form, >> >> wouldn't it be just as easy to maintain one-bundle-per-module? >> >> >> > >> > I agree, if we go back to requiring a launcher that changes a lot how >> we'd >> > could put this together. I'm not at all against requiring a launcher as >> that >> > does make things easier in some respects, but lets remember why we did >> used >> > to do this and then chucked it out in the 0.90 rewrite ;) >> > >> > ...ant >> > >> > > > > -- > Thank you... > > Regards, > > Rajini >
