harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Licensing/Community] Fresh start
Date Mon, 05 Dec 2005 22:43:19 GMT
Sure, I've posted there.  The idea, of course, is that breaking the
class library code into more manageable components will allow for a well
managed divide-and-conquer approach to development.

We should, of course, distinguish development-time and run-time
modularity, and I believe that consolidating on OSGi metadata gives us a
good overlap between the two.

Developing the SE classlibs themselves as bundles is a bit unusual for
most OSGi tools, so there is a 'knack' to setting things up and I'm
still tweaking my development environment along the lines discussed on
the Felix list for 'best practice'.


Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 16:12 +0000, Tim Ellison wrote:
>>Mark: is there some concensus forming on componentization of the
>>Classpath code that would allow defining whole functional units like
>>this?  The OSGi bundles model seems to tick a number of the boxes as a
>>standardized method for specifying the inter-component dependencies,
>>version control, etc.
> It has been discussed, but I don't believe there is any clear consensus
> on using it at the moment. See the following thread on the mailinglist:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.classpath.devel/6474
> There is nobody working on that at the moment afaik. If it was done in a
> way that offered clear benefits for the current users then a patch to
> support it would of course be accepted. Maybe you can respond to that
> discussion and explain what the benefits are and how you would see it
> work in the context of classpath.
> Cheers,
> Mark


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

View raw message