felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>
Subject Re: osgi.jar and R4 sources was: Mavenization
Date Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:40:19 GMT
I expect that once the OSGi Alliance releases a final osgi.jar file with 
source, then we will check that into our repo and make mods to tie it to 
our framework where necessary and possibly make any other 
improvement/changes we deem necessary.

The OSGi Alliance won't (at least they didn't in the past) release 
updates to this JAR file, so we won't have to worry about re-patching 
until R5, would be my guess.

This seems manageable.

re: one jar versus two, I prefer two, since it makes it easier for me to 
"see" the size of our implementation, but I might be able to be 
convinced otherwise.

-> richard

Brett Porter wrote:

>On 8/27/05, Richard S. Hall <heavy@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>For me, this was more an issue of letting things settle down a little
>>bit. Everything is so fluid right now that it seems like we'd be chasing
>>our tails.
>>    
>>
>
>Definitely a good idea, but I'd also avoid letting anything settle
>down which is known to be somiething you want to change as things can
>pick up fast and they get harder and harder to change.
>
>  
>
>>You have to expect dependencies from felix.jar to osgi.jar. The reverse
>>dependencies are a little more tricky and ugly. The ugly part is that I
>>just grabbed the R4 sources from Eclipse since they are under EPL so
>>that we would have them to compile against until the official R4 release
>>comes out which will also be under EPL; Eclipse has dependencies back
>>into their framework, so I just hacked them to get them to compile with
>>Felix. The tricky part is that we will probably want these circular
>>dependencies too, because this is done for optimization purposes.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't think this is an issue of Mavenization, as I think it needs to
>be addressed in the Ant build anyway (and you can get Maven to do what
>you are doing now with a little encouragement, but it isn't
>recommended).
>
>So, if osgi.jar and felix.jar are going to forever be linked in this
>way, they have to reside together and you can't substitute another
>container for felix or another osgi spec jar without changing the
>other. In which case, they should just be one JAR. Problem solved :)
>
>This cuts back to how the R4 sources will be managed going forward,
>which I've discussed with you before. Will we be maintaining our own
>version of the R4 sources, constantly copying changes from the EPL
>sources, will they be frozen, or will we eventually use a
>redistributable JAR?
>
>I think from earlier discussions we've established that all of those
>are acceptable from a licensing standpoint, but from a technical
>standpoint the first one sounds downright scary, the second reasonable
>(but still scary as I'm sure there will be revisions and then it
>reverts to the first) and third preferable as it means that osgi.jar
>and felix.jar can be independant.
>
>Regardless, IMO if we maintain the sources and there is a circular
>dep, I think producing one JAR is the best way to go.
>
>WDYT?
>
>- Brett
>
>
>
>  
>


Mime
View raw message