On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 16:55, Alex Karasulu <email@example.com
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Guillaume Nodet <firstname.lastname@example.org
>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 15:42, Alex Karasulu <email@example.com
>> > Thanks Guillaume for your thoughts. Responding in this post to both of
>> > you
>> > in line ...
>> > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny
>> > <firstname.lastname@example.org
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 5/11/11 10:47 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> SNIP ...
>> > By "hide the OSGi stuff", do you mean embed the OSGi container in the
>> > application?
>> Looking at the current api, an average user that does not use OSGi
>> won't see the fact that an embedded Felix is launched and it has no
>> access to it anyway, so that's what I mean by hidden.
> The goal was not to grant programatic access to the OSGi container. The goal
> was to just expose a directory where the user can drop bundles and on
> startup they would be used to extend the codec.
> SNIP ..
>> >>> that you export the slf4j pacakge in version 1.6.0 from the system
>> >>> bundle. What if a user start using a [1.6.1,2) range when importing
>> >>> that package ?
>> > Do you mean to say the user, writes and added a new bundle for an
>> > extension,
>> > and the extension bundle depends on slf4j 1.6.1 for example?
> Agreed if a bundle supplying the 1.6.1 SLF4J API is not provided we'll get
> an exception from the container. However if the 1.6.1 API is provided in the
> bundle loading directory it should work just fine.
> However this is not that realistic of a situation because users that are
> going to use the LDAP API in this standalone scenario to extend it will have
> to use a specific version of the LDAP API and develop their
> extensions/plugins according those dependencies. Let's step through the
> 1). The user of the API wants to extend the codec in the LDAP API to handle
> the encoding and decoding of Foo extended operations present specifically in
> Bar LDAP server.
> 2). User creates a Maven project to create the Foo extended operation codec
> plugin including the dependency for the LDAP API version they're working
> with. Naturally they would use the SLF4J API dependency that the LDAP API
> version uses.
> In this case the aforementioned scenario does not result. The plugin for the
> Foo codec extension bundle would naturally have to follow the dependencies
> used by the LDAP API.
>> > Again do you [Guillaume] mean embedding a OSGi container when you say
>> > hiding?
>> Yes, embedding but not giving the user access to it.
> OK I see, we do not intend to give the user access to the container. Is
> there some reason why you think we should grant user access to the
>> Other possible problems are that OSGi does not work in some
>> environments like Google App Engine for example, because it needs
>> access to the file system.
> Good point. This might be a good reason to just avoid using OSGi here.
>> I'm quite sure I haven't fully grasped what the use case is (i.e. when
>> / how / who will people develop and use those bundles / extensions),
>> but a simple URLClassLoader would look like a way easier solution to
>> me when not in OSGi. If that cause problem, you could always say:
>> well, OSGi solves those problems so you should use it and the code is
>> able to leverage it.
> This decision is really about a tradeoff. The codec needs the ability to
> allow users to extend it to handle new extended req/resp pairs and controls.
> The server and studio exist in OSGi environments where there's no problem
> with using OSGi bundles for the modularity mechanism. Plus when used in
> these two scenarios, the LDAP API extensions can be dynamically loaded,
> unloaded and/or have new versions loaded, and this is a capability is
> The tradeoff problem appears when the LDAP API is used standalone outside of
> these environments in a client application or with some command line tool
> for ldap clients. So having OSGi bundles for codec extensions, how do we
> re-use those extensions in the standalone scenario?
> The simple class loading mechanism should work just fine with the plugin
> bundles defaulting to regular jars, and this is how the standalone version
> of the codec factory can work while the OSGi version can be used in the
> ApacheDS and Studio use cases.
> I'm starting to think the classloader based mechanism might be best for
> standalone usage.
>> I guess I'm just missing the use cases to understand that this could
>> be a good solution, as I don't even see where the bundles loaded are
>> used at all
> The plugin bundles do not contain any services. The activators of the plugin
> bundles simply register classes in the plugin bundle with the main service
> exported by the host application: the codec factory service.
> Looking at this big fat mess a good rule of thumb is starting to emerge:
> Do not embed OSGi containers in APIs, because you cannot be sure of the
> environments in which that API will be used.
> The best way to proceed would be to expose a means
> to programmatically register new extension components with the API, and
> leave the mechanism to load and register the plugin components outside the
> API to be handled by some other component.