I've committed some changes to support Felix 4.0.0-4.0.2 in Pax Runner, see http://team.ops4j.org/browse/PAXRUNNER-410.

I'm not so sure about the role of the <packages> list in the platform definitions, e.g. org.ops4j.pax.runner/pax-runner-platform-felix/src/main/resources/META-INF/platform-felix/definition-4.0.2.xml

This appears to be the list of org.osgi.* packages and versions exported by the system bundle, which includes some new ones introduced in OSGi Core 4.3.0.

Pax Runner uses this list to build the org.osgi.framework.system.packages property in the generated config.ini for Felix.

Now I'm not too intimate with Felix, but I'm wondering why Pax Runner generates this property at all. org.apache.felix.main includes a default.properties which sets org.osgi.framework.system.packages and includes the correct set of JRE packages depending on the selected execution environment.

When config.ini does not include the system packages property, Felix falls back to the value set in default.properties.

Pax Runner generates the system packages from execution environment definitions in org.ops4j.pax.runner/pax-runner-platform/src/main/resources/META-INF/platform/ee.

What's the point in duplicating all this information in Pax Runner which must be handled by any given OSGi framework anyway?

Moreover, there are subtle differences: E.g. comparing the JavaSE-1.6 profiles from Pax Runner and Felix, the number of packages is not the same, and Felix includes uses directives whereas Pax Runner does not.

So when launching Felix x.y.z under Pax Runner you don't actually get the same framework configuration as when working with the official distribution. This might lead to unexpected behaviour and looks a bit dangerous to me.

Another thing in Pax Runner's platform definitions is the set of additional bundles. Felix requires three additional bundles for Gogo Shell support. What about org.apache.felix.bundlerepository, which is included in Felix distributions but not in the platform definitions?

Felix experts, please comment...

Thanks,
Harald




_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general

Reply via email to