Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <42C2A86A.8000401@nada.kth.se>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:55:54 +0200
From: Daniel Fagerstrom <danielf@nada.kth.se>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [osgi] Changing framework?
References: <42C12CF4.6050301@nada.kth.se> <42C29A23.5080304@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <42C29A23.5080304@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Reinhard Poetz wrote:

> Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>
>> I feel a little bit like geting a Cocoon servlet to run in the 
>> current OSGi framework before changing, so that we have something 
>> that is more motivating for others to work at. But then we need to 
>> change to the Eclipse OSGi framework IMO. Any help would be greatly 
>> appriciated.
>
>
> AFAIU, when using OSGi we only use the official API and don't depend 
> on the implementation, do we?

For block development we should only depend on official APIs. But the 
way you start an OSGi server is not standardized in R3. And as we want 
to be able to continue to have the option of having Cocoon packaged as a 
servlet (or at least some of you, I don't care), we need to be able to 
start the OSGi server programatically. Also both Knopflerfish and 
Eclipse has a server configuration file that is used when starting the 
server that differ somewhat, although the concepts are the same and many 
of the properties are standardized.

> What I mean is, if we use the Eclipse OSGi implementation  because of 
> its support for OSGi R4 and let's say in 3 months Knopflerfish or 
> Oscar implement R4 too, changing to one of them should be straight 
> forward, shouldn't it?

Yes it should be straight forward. We probably will want to make the 
"OSGi inside a servlet" option plugable WRT to implementation so that 
people can chose.

/Daniel