+1 for removing OSGi. I don't see any value in continuing to use it. If we really want to maintain runtime boundaries as in OSGi, we can use the latest Java features itself to achieve it.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 9:15 AM Nuwan Jayawardene <[email protected]> wrote: > Understood Isuru. > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 6:45 AM, Isuru Udana <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Nuwan >> >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 12:50 PM Nuwan Jayawardene <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Isuru, >>> for clarification, is the plan to replace OSGi with an alternative or is >>> it just removing dead weight? >>> >> I don't see we are gaining anything from OSGi here, so no alternative is >> required. >> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 3:14 PM Isuru Udana <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I am trying to understand the advantage of making Synapse jars as OSGi >>>> bundles. >>>> Anyone can recall the original decision behind this? >>>> I found the following blog written by Ruwan in 2008, but still, it is >>>> unclear what advantage we are gaining from OSGi. >>>> >>>> http://blog.ruwan.org/2008/07/apache-synapse-artifacts-are-osgi.html >>>> >>>> Going forward to support future JDK versions, this will become a little >>>> problematic. If there is no real reason shall we remove OSGi? >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Isuru Udana* >>>> Director - Engineering >>>> WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.com >>>> Member, Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org >>>> >>>> *email: [email protected] <[email protected]>* cell: +94 77 3791887 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Nuwan Jayawardene* >>> https://www.linkedin.com/m/in/nuwanjaya >>> >>> >> >> -- >> *Isuru Udana* >> Director - Engineering >> WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.com >> Member, Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org >> >> *email: [email protected] <[email protected]>* cell: +94 77 3791887 >> >>
