directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: OSGi Packaging for ApacheDS
Date Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:50:42 GMT

On Oct 27, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Chris Custine wrote:

> Hi Guys,
> As an interim step to eventually deploying inside an OSGi container,  
> I have started working out packaging the jar files as OSGi bundles  
> just to see how much work it will be.  The idea is that in the short  
> term nothing should affect ongoing development because the bundle  
> packaging is just some modifications to the module pom.xml files  
> which add the OSGi headers to the MANIFEST.MF files at build time.
>
> In doing this I have realized that there are quite a few cases of  
> split packages where two (sometimes three or more) projects have  
> classes in the same package.  This is important for the OSGi  
> packaging because package names are the primary descriptor for  
> importing and exporting code from bundles and if more than one  
> bundle exports from the same package there is quite a bit more work  
> to maintaining the packaging configuration (in this case, a plugin  
> config in the pom.xml).  One big example is the  
> org.apache.directory.server.core.partition.* packages which are  
> contained in multiple partition implementations as well as apacheds- 
> core.
>
> So my first question is if this is something that we want to discuss  
> and start taking care of now?  There are several solutions  
> obviously, and it is quite possible that we can work around this  
> with hand crafted packaging descriptors for the OSGi bundles.  This  
> is a bit of work however and long term maintenance of the packaging  
> will be much higher.  Other options include re-organizing packages  
> to have more unique structure (my personal preference), or we could  
> also combine some of the scattered code into consolidated jar files.
>
> Any input or alternative ideas?

IMO fixing this so that all classes from a package are in the same jar  
is the way to go, and sooner is better.  I think that looking  
carefully at what is misplaced will be needed to determine if changing  
the package name or moving the class is a better solution.

Do you have a tool to identify this kind of problem?  I suspect  
geronimo might have similar issues.

thanks
david jencks

>
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Custine
> My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
> Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
> Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org


Mime
View raw message