Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 68311 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2005 21:18:52 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Aug 2005 21:18:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 22392 invoked by uid 500); 10 Aug 2005 21:18:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 22331 invoked by uid 500); 10 Aug 2005 21:18:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 22312 invoked by uid 99); 10 Aug 2005 21:18:48 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:18:48 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [68.230.240.37] (HELO lakermmtao02.cox.net) (68.230.240.37) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:19:09 -0700 Received: from [192.168.0.100] (really [70.179.64.83]) by lakermmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050810211845.ZFJZ14195.lakermmtao02.cox.net@[192.168.0.100]> for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:18:45 -0400 Message-ID: <42FA6F33.5090407@reverycodes.com> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:18:43 -0400 From: Vadim Gritsenko User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: [RT] The impact of using OSGi References: <42E4976F.30702@apache.org> <42E4A370.2090508@apache.org> <42E4BCEB.4060603@apache.org> <59c0321fa60219a7237b6225b8eabd69@apache.org> <42F92AD4.8060500@nada.kth.se> <42F9E6F5.1000009@apache.org> <42F9EE0D.4050901@odoko.co.uk> <42F9F9E7.6000300@nada.kth.se> <42FA06CE.6050501@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <42FA06CE.6050501@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > Daniel Fagerstrom schrieb: > >>At some point in time, e.g. now ;) we need to decide that we go for >>OSGi. Keeping all roads open at all time means that we just reinvent >>whats allready is standardized in OSGi. >> >>For functionality that we allready have, we must of course respect back >>compability and write wrappers beween what we have and the new OSGi >>based implementations. But for new functionallity I think that we should >>reuse as much as possible of what allready is in OSGi. >> > > I think we should use OSGi *just* for the "core blocks" implementation > which is class loading, versioning and installation and that's it. > But that's just my opinion. +1 I'd even say that at this point in time, none of the existing blocks should be aware of OSGi existence but only Cocoon "Kernel", which uses OSGi to manage (load/unload) blocks on the fly. Vadim