incubator-celix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sascha Zelzer <>
Subject Re: Poddling status
Date Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:56:14 GMT
On 01/13/2012 07:23 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Alexander Broekhuis wrote:
>> - Use Celix as an alternative for JNI, which provides a more robust
>> solution. The processes are separated, and one side crashing won't take
>> down the other.
>> Does anyone have a specific use case or interest in this that can be used
>> as a showcase?

I don't, sorry. We do not use Java at all. However, I am still 
interested in compatibility with Java OSGi services (probably using 
"remote services" in some way).

>> - During many discussions C++ is mentioned, also seing the replies now
>> again there seems to be quite a lot of interest in an OSGi implementation
>> in C++.
>> - There are several C++ OSGi like implementations, collaboration with these
>> projects could benefit both.
> It makes a lot of sense to reach out to those communities to see if we can collaborate.

Sounds very good to me. At the very least, the developers/communities 
get to know each other and see if they share the same visions.

>> Seeing this interest in C++, I think it would be a good starting point to
>> try and reach a broader community.
>> The following C++ frameworks are mentioned:
>> - nOSGi:
>> - SOF:
>> - CommonTK Plugin Framework:
> If anybody else has additions to this list, let us know!
> Maybe closer to home, other Apache projects that are interested in collaborating. For
example, we are currently using the APR and might even do ports to platforms that currently
are not supported yet. Another example could be to look at other OSGi projects (Felix, ACE,
Karaf, ...) and see if there are things that could be of interest to them (I'm thinking they
might be interested in a JNI alternative, for example).
>> Areas where I think collaboration might be interesting are:
>> * Bundling
>> * Metadata
>> * API (how to map the OSGi specification to C/C++)
> I'm sure there are many technical issues to work on, once we get in contact. The first
thing we should do is to see if we have common goals. Since we're all implementing the OSGi
specification at least at a high level we do.

I definitely agree. Having some common ground would be great. Agreeing 
on the API level sure will get very technical. Having the same Metadata 
format would definitely ease the integration step of different C++ 
framework a lot.

>> Does anyone have any ideas/suggestions regarding this? What would be a good
>> starting point?
> Getting in touch, getting a discussion going. Perhaps we should write up a small introduction
to Celix, maybe even a short demo video, that shows what Celix can do, contact these projects
on their mailing lists, forums, etc. and see what happens.

You got my attention already :-) I don't know if that is feasible, but 
having something like a one-day brainstorming meeting in real life would 
definitely get things rolling much faster. The main developers of the 
listed C++ OSGi projects are all living in Germany and the Netherlands 
are not so far away. If people are interested, maybe there is an 
opportunity to meet...

>> Also I think it is interesting how the current Celix framework can be
>> extended so that it can support C++. If possible I would like to keep a C
>> only framework, with specific extensions if used with C++.
> Agreed.

Yes, AFAIK that is exactly how other projects are doing this. The C 
library is untouched, and a separate C++ library/framework just provides 
a thin object-oriented API layer on top. Shouldn't be too hard to do. 
And the huge advantage of having a native C API is that generating other 
language wrappers is much easier.

Greetings from Heidelberg,


View raw message