A very interesting point (already in the JSR proposal);
<quote>
The R3 version of the Open Services Gateway Initiative (OSGi) specification defines a framework that enables the deployment of service-oriented applications (called bundles). However, the framework only supports package dependency based on the minimum version of a specification, and there is no support for exact version or version range. The framework also supports package dependency based on an implementation, but there is no support for versioning. Moreover, the framework must choose one bundle that will be the provider of the exported package for all bundles which have dependencies on that package, so it is impossible to support more than one version of shared package at runtime. Besides, the selection of exported package provider is anonymous, and there is no way to influence the selection. Because the versioning semantics in the OSGi R3 framework is simplistic, it is not a sufficient solution to address the JAR referencing problem.
</quote>
Considering that all "weaknesses" are already supported in the R4, I find the entire argument around "2.6 Why isn't this need met by existing specifications?" invalid and void. However, I am not going to speculate around the existence of JSR-277.
For the specification itself, I am left with a big "Is that All??" hole in my mind. Considering the OSGi level of sophistication, its ability to run on so many platforms, matureness and feature set, I find it being weak, incomplete and a poor attempt at a complex problem domain. If it was made 8 years ago, it might have impressed me, but today??
Sticking Maven into the JVM and promoting a network oriented classloader without reload considerations, ain't enough.
Now, for the JSR-291, (now I am assuming that JSR-277 somehow will be approved) I don't think the JSR-277 doesn't present much we need to pay attention to, other than;
1. One more JAR format with more redundant information.
2. In a few years time having to support deployment of Modules as Bundles??
3. In even further into the future, when Java 7 is the main Java SE version out there, have OSGi implementations built on top of it??
Nah. I am not impressed, and by the look of it, nothing much will be sailing up on that front either.
Sorry Stanley ;o)
Cheers
Niclas
On 10/13/06,
Glyn Normington <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
JSR 277 ([1]) has entered its Early Draft review ([1]) and I would
encourage you to read the spec. and submit any comments you feel
appropriate.
Apologies if you already knew or are not interested.
Glyn
[1] http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=277
[2] http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/edr/jsr277/index.html
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
osgi-dev@bundles.osgi.org
http://bundles.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
_______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List osgi-dev@bundles.osgi.org http://bundles.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
