cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@apache.org>
Subject Re: OSGi Bundles, Re: svn commit: r292305
Date Sat, 01 Oct 2005 04:20:55 GMT
On Friday 30 September 2005 04:55, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> Also, I'm not convinced that blocks should be active (i.e. contain
> activator) at all. 

Without active participation it is no more than a shared library, and as such 
it is very difficult to swap out and replace with a new implementation 
without restarting the entire application.

> We should probably separate block's code from block's 
> instance. It is especially important if you have an ability to pass
> parameters into the block. Two Cocoon Applications will not be able to
> share single instance of a block if its configuration differs - hence,
> block itself is passive and is instantiated by the application.

I have a hard time following this discussion, as "block" is somewhat undefined 
in OSGi terms, and _I_ don't feel I understand with it is exactly.
Now, that said, I have assumed that a block bundle consists of 0..n block 
services. In OSGi, it is very straight forward to hand different service 
instances to different client bundles. It is also possible to register the 
same "service code" with many instances, each different in its setup. One 
could! have a ROLE attribute in the registration that the client use for the 
lookup. And so on.

I am not sure what you mean by "passing parameters into the block". I have an 
eirie feeling you are refering to "management" concerns about setting up the 
service from the outside, and not runtime concerns during the service call.


Cheers
Niclas

Mime
View raw message