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: Bootstrapping the classlibrary builds
Date Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:08:16 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> Sure, if you don't want the runtime effects of OSGi then you have
>> flexibility to package the classes into any shape, including an rt.jar.
>>  However, if we want to support runtime modularity including component
>> versioning etc. then we will have to have a number of discrete bundles.
>>  If OSGi has the ability to put multiple bundles into a single JAR ...
> I thnk you are missing my point.  Sorry.  What I'm saying/asking is
> about OSGi being one [of many possible] delivery "packagings" of the
> class libraries.

Can you think of any other runtime modularity systems that we should
consider supporting?

> So yes, I think that we definitely want to do OSGi as our default
> packaging for our full implementation of J2SE, but that doesn't seem to
> have to dictate on how we work with the code as class library
> developers, does it?

Life is easier if we layout the source code in modules too (rather than,
say, mash it all together and make the modularity a package-time event)
because we can get development time support from OSGi-aware tools like
PDE that will 'smack' you for references outside the module definitions,
compilation against the target directory, etc.

> We have the circular dep issue to tangle with
> (which seems to go away if we do a bootstrap uber-compile/uber-jar) and
> we can also offer other packagings of the classlibrary to work with
> systems that don't do OSGi support.


> And we don't know how 277 is going to turn out - we hope for OSGi-ish,
> but one never knows...

Makes it kinda difficult to support then ;-)  I say we cross that bridge
when we get to it.



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

View raw message