"Richard S. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/05/2006 07:00:14 PM:
> On Dec 5, 2006, at 6:47 PM, Aaron Siri wrote: > > > If you haven't already taken a look at equinox you should. Eclipse is > > a good > > example of an app built atop OSGi from which to learn. If equinox is > > a bad > > word around here then I apologize. > > > > Anyways, it already has the concept of plugins, extension points, etc > > built > > atop OSGi using xml descriptors. You can use it all without any of the > > eclipse UI/app framework. Just download the equinox SDK and you'll > > have > > almost everything you'll need. We are using it for a web-based > > application > > where we and third parties can plug in functionality. > > > > BTW, is the equinox/felix relationship friendly? > > Sure it is...well, except for that McAffer guy... (sorry Jeff, I > couldn't resist) Don't blame you. I likely could not have resisted the inverse jab... ;-) Truth be known for everyone out there I have the utmost respect for Richard and all the work being done in Felix. Its great. > We have a few differences in opinion on "best practices", but otherwise > we work together and discuss with each other quite regularly. Too much is likely made of these differences (actually, I likely make to much of them sometimes). Fact is that all the OSGi communities out there are keen on modularity, simplicity, dynamic behaviour and see OSGi as a great vehicle. There are some different usecases and priorities driving the work being done. Certainly in the Equinox community we are actively seeking to reduce/eliminate any "containerisms" that we may have. In short, people should feel comfortable adopting OSGi as a base technology for their software knowing that this is a cohesive community and that ultimately they have choices in the implementation they use. Jeff (aka, "that McAffer guy")
