www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>
Subject Re: JSR 291 - public review
Date Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:55:58 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2007, at 6:14 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> The JSR says that the "specification will define a dynamic component 
>>> framework including component lifecycle for existing Java SE 
>>> platforms" and further the JSR states that
>>> "This specification will be a subset of JSR 232 including the 
>>> modularity and lifecycle aspects of the OSGi R4 framework but 
>>> excluding the service aspects of the framework, declarative service 
>>> support, and the services defined by JSR 232.
>>> The specification lead will track revisions in the JSR 232 and OSGi 
>>> specifications as they apply to this JSR, and will publish updates 
>>> to this JSR as those specifications are updated."
>>> In your opinion, has the JSR done that?
>> Not a simple answer. First, I believe it is a subset of JSR 232, 
>> because that includes stuff related to the mobile phone world that is 
>> not in 291. Second, it did try to leave out services and there was 
>> discussion on the EG mailing list about what/how to leave things out, 
>> but in the end it proved too difficult to leave the service layer 
>> completely out, since the module and life cycle layers were partially 
>> exposed in services, such as the PackageAdmin service. Most services 
>> are not part of 291, for example the OSGi compendium services are not 
>> included.
> where is that noted?

Hmm. I think it would be by virtue of the fact that they are not 
referenced from the EDR, only the core R4.1 spec PDF is included in the 
EDR zip...I really don't know, perhaps you should be emailing Glyn 
Normington, since he is the spec lead.

>>> Another question - given that there's no content to the spec offered 
>>> by the EG, what's the point?  OSGi exists, and is a solid spec.  
>>> What's the point of a JSR that says "look over there" without saying 
>>> anything itself?
>> Again, I think one of the goals here was to try to bring the 
>> communities together so that OSGi would not necessarily exist 
>> completely independent of the JCP in the future. This had already 
>> been done for Java ME via 232, so this is would just make it official 
>> for Java SE.
> I have to ask - how is OSGi not independent of the JCP now w/ 291?    
> I'm not trying to be antagonistic - I'm just trying to figure out how 
> anything is different.  Yes, changes went into 4.1, but you're an OSGi 
> guy to start with...
> let me ask this a different way - why could changes happen if the 
> forum was the JCP mailing list rather than the OSGi mailing list?

Well, I think the issue was that JCP members were given the opportunity 
to have some voice in how R4 should be turned into R4.1, rather than 
only allowing OSGi members to have a voice. To be clear, though, the 
OSGi Alliance did not have plans for R4.1 before JSR 291, R4.1 came 
about as a direct response to the discussion of the 291 EG mailing list.

>> I agree that OSGi is a solid spec, but without trying to bridge the 
>> gap between the JCP and the OSGi Alliance, then it is as if OSGi 
>> technology doesn't even exist as far as the JCP is concerned, and 
>> that benefits no one in my opinion.
> And it exists now because there's a pointer to it?

It exists because the JCP is the standard way to introduce new 
technology into Java.

-> richard

View raw message