On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>wrote:
> I think it makes sense if utils is "larger". Currently, the coverage is so > low that I think it's a overhead. > > I disagree. If utils becomes bigger, and maybe it should to avoid duplication of code throughout karaf, bundles can easily embed only the packages they use. It's really just a matter of not using org.apache.karaf.util.* but org.apache.karaf.util.xxx in the definition of the private package. > On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that some more code can be moved into > utils ;) > > Regards > JB > > > On 03/13/2013 04:21 PM, Christian Schneider wrote: > >> Honestly I would prefer utils to be a bundle but it is also ok like it is. >> >> Christian >> >> On 13.03.2013 16:19, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >> >>> No Christian, don't take my wrong: I mean that sometime all (and I >>> include myself in all) we think that we do something simpler, more >>> elegant, but for the others, it's not ;) >>> >>> Karaf utils is a good example I think. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On 03/13/2013 04:16 PM, Christian Schneider wrote: >>> >>>> On 13.03.2013 16:01, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think that on trunk we made some progress in the way that you >>>>> describe. For instance, unlike that we have in Karaf 2.x, modules on >>>>> trunk are structured like this: >>>>> - core provide OSGi services >>>>> - commands use the core services >>>>> - MBeans use the core services >>>>> - an end-user can use core services if he wants >>>>> >>>>> Fortunately trunk is a little simpler already: >>>> - core contains OSGi services and mbeans (the mbeans are only registered >>>> as osgi services) >>>> - commands contains the commands and uses the core services >>>> >>>> This simplification is an example of how we can reduce the number of >>>> modules without sacrificing maintainability. We might need an improved >>>> aries jmx where an admin can switch on and off jmx mbeans but apart from >>>> this I think the structure is fine. >>>> >>>> I'm not fully agree with Christian. OSGi doesn't mean that we have to >>>>> expose all as OSGi, for instance, it doesn't make sense for Karaf >>>>> utils (we are not in a developer bullshit approach where we turn all >>>>> in OSGi just for "fun" or "elegance", we have to keep things simple, >>>>> maintainable, and coherent). >>>>> >>>> I hope you do not really mean to say my opinion is a "developer bullshit >>>> aproach". My main focus is exactly to keep things simple, maintainable >>>> and coherent. Just more from a developer point of view than an admin >>>> point of view. >>>> >>>> Christian >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Red Hat, Open Source Integration Email: [email protected] Web: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
