fwiw I would (for a change :) ) would like to avoid OSGi here and keep things as they are for following reasons
1. JR2 is not OSGi friendly and we use some of the internal classes for upgrade which would be problematic in OSGI 2. For debug and console we rely on some non exported packages. Using them in OSGi would again be tricky Chetan Mehrotra On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Michael Dürig <mdue...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 27.5.14 4:48 , Jukka Zitting wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Michael Dürig <mdue...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> We can turn the jar in to an OSGi container, but why not ship >> everything everything we can by default? > > > Because > > >>> increase flexibility, test and showcase OSGi readiness of Oak, >>> resolve version conflicts (e.g. Lucene), let others easily plug in >>> their own stuff (e.g scripting language through JSR-223). > > > Michael
