Mailing-List: contact felix-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of hargrave@us.ibm.com designates
 32.97.110.150 as permitted sender)
In-Reply-To: <43BCF77D.5040904@gmail.com>
To: felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OSGi, versioning and native code
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: BJ Hargrave <hargrave@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: 
 <OF9EF78707.58A3E28C-ON852570ED.004A95FE-852570ED.004AAF71@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 08:38:21 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote on 2006-01-05 05:39:57 AM:

> But in this example the "db2e" is not under version control, so multiple
> concurrently active versions of the "db2ejdbc" bundle are required to
> agree on a common db2e library.
> 
> Even if you put the db2e code into it's own bundle, you couldn't
> differentiate between the two versions when making a C call from db2jdbc
> to db2e (because you can't get a handle to the library version you want)
> unless you rely upon the loadLibrary() call to open the library for you.
> 
> I think the moral to this story is that the bundle versioning bottoms
> out at the loadLibrary() call, beyond that you should probably revert to
> deploying the platform libraries outside the framework, and using the
> platform's version control where it exists.

Probably wise. :-)

> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> IBM Java technology centre, UK.