I think we should first identify which low-level requirements that any module system may want to address.
I see the following ones, in ascending order of complexity: 1) bootstrap-time incremental loading of modules 2) late and on-demand incremental loading of modules 3) support for on-demand unloading of the modules 4) support for sdk multi-versioning (modules compiled against different SDK revisions) I think that the current RSL features only address requirement 1. AFAIK, many of the existing frameworks (e.g potomac) allow to go up to requirement 2, and in this level we usually find the need for additional high-level facilities such as registries, IoC and dependency management features. However, my personal take is that those facilities should not be embedded in the SDK but left open to the application frameworks: I'd prefer to have only the low-level handles in the SDK and in the Player to let these frameworks implement their abstraction. Going to level 3 is currently not simple, partially because of limitations at the Flash Player level (e.g. the remote aliases registry managed at the SecurityDomain level, thus potentially related to multiple ApplicationDomains with conflicting class definitions, or the impossibility to remove entries of this registry once added). Level 4 is, on the other hand, pretty tied to the Flex SDK implementation (it was the scope of the marshall plan). I think that a discussion about the scope of any modules support system could help us to better define the problem. Cosma 2012/1/19 Skogen, Espen <[email protected]>: > In simple terms, the benefits would be this: > > Your main application loads a number of modules provided by a number of dev > teams. > Each module has a number of dependencies, and you do not know what those > dependencies are at compile time of the parent app, so RSL is not an option. > > The registry allows loading of the dependencies of the modules, adds them to > the application domain, and keeps a record of the dependency. When the second > module depending on the same dependency gets loaded, there's no need to load > the dependencies, because they already exist in the app domain. > > So in effect, it allows an on-demand rsl-like dependency loading behaviour > which is supported on a module level instead of just at the application level. > > There are however issues around memory management and unloading which needs > to be addressed, so although theoretically it sounds quite simple; there's a > number of implementation issues that needs some thought. Haven't spent much > time on this, but it would definitely be worth investigating. > > E:) > > > Espen Skogen | Vice President | IB Tech Market | Investment Bank | J.P. > Morgan | 125 London Wall, EC2Y 5AJ, London, United Kingdom | T: > +442077420836 | [email protected] | jpmorgan.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Web DoubleFx [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 18 January 2012 17:49 > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: OSGi bundle Plugin registry system > > >> From: [email protected] >> This is the approach I've used in the past as well. Gotta love Parsley > > Sorry, for my english BTW, but can you explained what the gain with a > registry ? > > If we have a bootstrap, we'll loose the possibility to optimize RSL loading > (like in Gravity), and I wonder, what can bring us a registry ? > Frédéric Thomas > This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and > conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of > securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses, > confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers, > available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.
