Hi Pete, Thanks for your insight! Thats exactly why i would be keen on not just dump-bundle-izing dependencies but sort the apples and oranges that "are in good shape in terms of modularity". This includes: - proof of concept projects showing things actually work (and not just resolve) - repackage/fork libraries of interest and make them more modular - encourage (by all means) authors to pull those changes back in. (keyword: feedback pipe) -> this is far easier to do if you can showcase scenarios why this is really useful and not just for the niche of OSGi-Nerds. *Put Modularity on the Flag and OSGi in your toolbox. Not the other way around.*
Toni On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Pete Carapetyan <[email protected]>wrote: > Observation: [almost off topic] > - I use OSGi because it supports modularity. In that, modularity is all I > really care about. OSGi does this well for me, and pretty painlessly too, > as it has for the last year. > - This thread once again demonstrates that, as for me, 80% of the time > seems to be spent jacking with dependencies that even when OSGi-ified would > still never be modular in design. > > It just seems funny to me that such a large percentage of the effort > required to work with OSGi is where almost none of the benefit is. Just a > big up front requirement. > > Just saying :) I'd still never go back. > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > > -- Toni Menzel Source <http://tonimenzel.com>
_______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
