Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <25575274.1200908650939.JavaMail.root@viefep15>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:44:10 +0100
From: Simon Kitching <simon.kitching@chello.at>
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Support for OSGi
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sensitivity: Normal

---- Torsten Curdt <tcurdt@apache.org> schrieb:
> 
> On 21.01.2008, at 10:08, Tom Schindl wrote:
> 
> > Hi Torsten,
> >
> > I understand this but we are seeing many J2EE-Servers adopting OSGi  
> > and many applications
> > (I admit most of them in Eclipse-world) also. It seems strange to  
> > me in those envs to use this "artificial"
> > package to overcome jar-hell (which is the only reason for the  
> > java5-package right?) they are not having
> > because of OSGi.
> 
> Hm.... not sure why its such a big deal to have e.g.  
> o.a.commons.lang2 or similar. If you use an IDE that manages imports  
> you will barely notice anyway.
> 
> While it's great that OSGi adoption is getting better I still don't  
> believe it's something Commons should rely on. At least that's my  
> opinion.

Agreed.

OSGi = 10% of users (at most)
other = 90%

We cannot dump 90% of users into version-conflict hell in order to save 10% of users some effort when upgrading to the latest version.

Yes, it would be nice if something like OSGi was universal, so packagename hacks like this were not necessary. But it just ain't so.

Regards,
Simon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org