The uber-bundle approach was always a way to get started quickly with OSGi technologies that were comprised of a number of bundles, but they really don't work well when you are combining multiple technologies in a single OSGi framework, so people generally move off the uber-bundle once they start doing something more serious. Now that we have subsytems these provide a nice solution to this as they keep the modularity of bundles intact, while providing the convenience of a single deployable artifact (the .esa file). You get the simplicity of a single deployable file without the disadvantages of a big monolithic bundle - the best of both worlds really :)
So I guess all of the *other* projects that used to provide 'uber' bundles should really start providing subsystems now instead. That leaves the 'uber' bundle of the subsystems implementation itself. I think there is value in having it as it speeds up getting started with subsystems and you can't use .esa for this obviously, although I can imagine that once people have more serious deployments that they would move away from the subsystems uber-bundle and use the individual components instead. Anyway, just my thoughts. Cheers, David On 18 April 2013 12:47, John W Ross <jwr...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > I created subsystem-bundle early in the process because I saw other > components doing the same thing (e.g. blueprint and applications) and > assumed it was either mandatory or considered a best practice. I > subsequently realized, however, that these other components probably only > did it because they consist of much more than two bundles. So, now I kind > of regret creating something else to maintain :) But the cat is out of the > bag and appears to be in demand, so I guess we're stuck with it. > > Perhaps there would be more value if it also included optional components > like subsystem-obr? > > John > > > > > Re: [VOTE] subsystem-bundle 1.0.0 > > > > Thanks John. Was actually just playing with this component. I guess this > > makes it easier to get started with subsystems, but I think in real > > deployments people would probably be better off using the embedded > > components by themselves. Would you agree? > > > > In any case, here's my +1 to releasing this component. > > > > > > On 18 April 2013 10:55, John W Ross <jwr...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > This is a vote for the release of subsystem-bundle 1.0.0, an uber > bundle > > > containing subsystem-api 1.0.0 and subsystem-core 1.0.0. > > > > > > Staging Area: > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachearies-117/ > > > > > > Tags: > > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/aries/tags/org.apache.aries.subsystem-1.0.0/ > > > > > > This vote will remain open for at least 72 hours. > > > > > > John >