jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [jr3] One Project
Date Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:15:24 GMT
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Stefan Guggisberg
<stefan.guggisberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Mueller <mueller@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> ....I think reducing the number of
>>> ...If we include all dependencies (such as Apache Commons jar files) you
>>> would need a special class loader, right? Otherwise there may be conflicts
>>> with if somebody already uses a different version of a Apache Commons
>>> library that Jackrabbit also uses. That would be quite complex I guess, so
>>> I wouldn't do that. Instead, I would just concentrate on having as few jar
>>> files as possible...
>> OSGi solves that problem nicely,
> so you can have multiple versions of the same jar/bundle concurrently
> deployed in the same osgi container?

Yes, either by embedding problematic jars in others and hiding them as
private packages, or by setting the right version numbers in the OSGi
manifests, so that bundles get wired to the right libraries.

That's in theory, you know how practice goes ;-)

Anyway, right now my ideal view as a Jackrabbit user would be to get
OSGi-friendly jars of the various Jackrabbit modules (core, indexing,
webdav etc.) to be able to assemble them in my OSGi container, and
replace the ones that I'd like to replace with my own variants.

Whether the Jackrabbit runnable jar uses OSGi is up to the Jackrabbit
developers, but from the user's point of view I think that's important
- two major users of Jackrabbit are Day/Adobe and Sakai, which both
run on  OSGi, and with the current jars replacing/extending some
things is a bit painful.


View raw message