felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steven E. Harris" <...@panix.com>
Subject Re: When and how to adjust org.osgi.framework.system.packages
Date Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:38:00 GMT
"Richard S. Hall" <heavy@ungoverned.org> writes:

> You can put the whole log bundle on the class path, I don't care, but
> you should still only export the log package from the system
> bundle. Then you can install the log bundle and update, etc. as a
> normal bundle.
>
> Frankly, it puzzles me why it seems to be such a big concern to take
> open source files and put them in your own project. This a valid form
> of re-use.

Well, much of the allure of OSGi is its ability to build an
application that does not rely on a specific set of dependencies being
available, with the ability to update or swap out bundles as things
evolve. I expect the Felix code to evolve, and it's easier to
incorporate its evolution when we treat it as a set of opaque bundles,
as opposed to having to keep some of its files under my own source
control system as concrete dependencies.

> This has nothing to do with "extracting a subset out of the Felix
> log JAR". We are talking about open source interface files that the
> OSGi Alliance makes available for use in your projects.

Perhaps it would make more sense to get these interface files directly
from OSGi, as these files are just one facet of the OSGi
specification, which we expect to be stable and consistent among any
framework we rely on.

> From my point of view, re-using these files in your own project is
> not a big deal. They are interface classes after all, not
> implementation classes.

Yes, I see.

My hesitation comes from having worked with the coarse-grained
dependency view that Maven brings. I know you've (or someone else has)
written here recently that you don't feel too sympathetic to the
Maven JARs-as-indivisible-units-of-dependency view.

I want to keep as much of my application as easy to update as
possible. Obviously depending on bundles-as-bundles is a local
maximum. Having my main application depend on things provided in
bundles is possible, but not as easy as bundle-to-bundle dependency.

I was just asking about this here to feel around if this impression is
true, to see if I was stepping into hazardous territory. It will take
more experimenting for my view to settle.

-- 
Steven E. Harris

Mime
View raw message