On 12 Oct 2005, at 12:40, Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Pier Fumagalli wrote:On 11 Oct 2005, at 20:16, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:Just one small nitpicking comment, we should say "3.0 will *most probably* use OSGI" - as you said, it's a nice goal to have but I don't think we're 100% positive on that yet, there are still a few unknowns.I agree wholeheartedly... I am not 100% sure that OSGI is the perfect solution. AFAICS it's a little bit too cumbersome for my brain.And I know a lot of others share my concerns (from discussions at the GT).Any specific concerns about OSGi?
Personally, it looks "cumbersome" to me... Heck, I'm writing an Eclipse plugin at the moment, and if it wasn't for the Eclipse Plugin editor and stuff, I'd be totally lost.
Since the flow came along, I got quite lazy (weakly typed languages rule) and the complexity of writing (and maintaining) a set of metadata files related to each individual block, on top of sitemaps, wirings, xconfs, source Java files and so on is definitely not appealing to me.
I'm wondering if there isn't an easier (simpler) way to approach the problem. I really liked the idea of POJOs, and now OSGI forces me back to re-use service factories again (so, what's the difference from Avalon???), and on top of what Avalon does, it introduces all those manifests and stuff...
Oh, and please don't tell me that I can still use Avalon, Spring or whatever in the new thing. If we go down the OSGI route, I'll code for OSGI, not for some pseudo-adapter of some sort... I'm not one to take shortcuts.
Pier
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
