cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Fagerstrom <dani...@nada.kth.se>
Subject Re: [osgi] Changing framework?
Date Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:36:34 GMT
Torsten Curdt wrote:
> Maybe I should just shut up and let Daniel
> continue with his awesome job ...but (there
> is always a but)

I hope that you and everyone else speaks up and rise your concerns if 
you have any. I don't want this to be some one man show. I can do 
prototyping and write RTs on my own (altough I would prefer to work 
together with others), but there is a limit for how much I can work and 
still find it stimulating and don't risking burnout. We need community 
involvement in this area sooner rather than later if we really want real 
blocks.

> ...although I really think it makes sense to
> move into this direction I would like to express
> my "Avalon-fear". No documentation, we require
> the latest version, not our community...

I can understand the "Avalon fear". But there are large differences 
between Avalon and OSGi. The problem with Avalon wasn't the technology 
but (after a while) its community dynamics. I'm certain that large 
organizations like OSGi has it own share of community problems, but for 
an organization with maybe 40 member organizations 
http://www.osgi.org/about/member_list.asp?section=1, its qualitatively 
different, and to much money is involved to let it end as Avalon. 
Furthermore they have been around for 6 years and their standard is 
widely used and have 10+ implementations.

I don't like the documentation situation nor requiring the latest 
version. I just don't see any better options. OTH we are not exactly 
talking about an early alpha from some obscure organization. It is after 
all the kernel for Eclipse 3.1 release candidate 4, which IIUC is the 
last release candidate before the real release. And according to its 
developers it fullfills OSGi R4 that will be released rather soon, (it 
was supposed to be released during this spring).

> Am I the only one?
> 
> Daniel, your are the one that spent the
> more time looking into this stuff. Do we
> really need the whole framework? Do we
> want the whole framework or just the
> classloading part?

The framework consist of the class loading part, bundle management and a 
service architecture that supports hot deployment. The standard also 
involve various standard services, typically packaged in separate 
bundles. For Knopflerfish the whole framework and some basic services is 
contained in a 200 kB bundle, so it is not that huge. The minimal 
Eclipse framework bundle contains more and is about 800 kB.

I find the whole framework usefull and have no idea about how one could 
split it. What services we should use, if any, is another question and 
something we can discuss one case at a time when we need them.

> Maybe we could also just rip out parts
> that we need? ...might be a legal problem
> but having full control of the what is so
> core seems to be so desirable to me.

TBH, we have discussed containers for years, forked Cocoon a couple of 
times and Pier have even implemented an own kernel, without getting that 
much closer to real blocks. And today we have fewer active developers 
with container implementation competence and interest than we had a year 
or two ago. I don't see that we have the capacity for building our own 
kernel from scratch. Even if we use an existing kernel, we have a lot of 
work to adapt our current stuff to it. Both building our own kernel and 
adapt our current stuff to it seem unrealistic to me.

> Just me expressing my (stupid?) concerns
> reading this thread...

Hopefully the above clearyfied the situation somewhat.

/Daniel

Mime
View raw message