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: Telnet bundle
Date Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:05:12 GMT
Dieter Wimberger wrote:
>> Dieter Wimberger wrote:
>>> Actually I am the author of the project, so we can discuss it right 
>>> here; and if you are interested, I guess we can also manage to 
>>> release it under Apache 2 license (except the external SSH library, 
>>> which is under a BSD license).
>> Interesting. Didn't know you were here. :-)
> I am ;)
> I was already was giving Felix a hard time, because I was trying to 
> port to felix and do configuration tasks with the webconsole.

Excellent. It is always good to give Felix [Meschberger] a hard time. ;-)

>> When you say "an OSGi port", what exactly do you mean?
> It's an OSGi bundle that carries a bundle descriptor and a metatype 
> descriptor; it works as a ManagedServiceFactory to create instances of 
> listeners (telnet and SSH) through the CM. It's also implementing a 
> white board model design (I call it OSGi mediator) for adding shells 
> through additional bundles (using the OSGi service registry).

Interesting. So, you would say that it definitely would be a replacement 
for the telnetd bundle at oscar-osgi.sf.net then? Sounds like it.

Sounds good. Well, if you are planning on developing this on your end, 
then it is not unreasonable to just let you go about your business and 
do it (i.e., the bundle portion of your work doesn't have to be done 
here). However, if there is sufficient interest in moving the bundle 
aspects here as a subproject, then it could also be considered.

>> Good question. I would certainly like to have a version that would 
>> work with older/smaller Java platforms. However, we don't require 
>> that all Felix subprojects work on Java platforms, it just makes them 
>> more useful if they can be...
> A question we should discuss is, if there are limits sought with 
> regards to the runtime environment, because the codebase is Java 2 now 
> (may be backportable, though).
> The language level I currently use is Java 1.3. In comparison to the 
> older codebase, it may not run on very small embedded systems that are 
> often Java 1 (if at all).
> I took this decision, because I needed SSH and the library I found 
> (latest version is released under MIT license; 
> http://www.lag.net/paramiko/java) needs 1.3.

I would think that Java 1.3 would be fine as far as I am concerned. Others?

> I guess it would be possible to get some things that are overhead out 
> of the codebase and add them as extensions (e.g. Templates based on 
> antlr and stringtemplates, Beanshell based shell, text editors etc.). 
> It all depends on the requirements and the functionality you would 
> like to see.

Well, from my point of view, I don't think we need to target less than 
Java 1.3, but we can see what others think.

-> richard

> Regards,
> Dieter

View raw message