On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 01:34:22PM -0500, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >In terms of using a minimal OSGi environment for partitioning and
> >management of class library parts, what differences would be relevant
> >between R2/R3/R4?
> >
>
> Between R2 and R3, not much...you can
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 12:21:37PM -0800, Matt Benson wrote:
> --- Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > The wonderful part of that story is that noone needs
> > to share any code
> > of any component: how VMs implement the bootstrap
> > set of classes, which
> > OSGi implementation
--- Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[SNIP]
> The wonderful part of that story is that noone needs
> to share any code
> of any component: how VMs implement the bootstrap
> set of classes, which
> OSGi implementation they chose, if they use JNI or
> avian carrier
> pidgeons :) fails to matt
Please ignore
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> Just to be clear, the kernel classes are VM-dependent types that are not
> typically reusable since the VM typically will 'know' the shape of the
> class/instances. I think it is useful to minimize that set.
>
Yeah, I think we were talking past eac
Dalibor Topic wrote:
In terms of using a minimal OSGi environment for partitioning and
management of class library parts, what differences would be relevant
between R2/R3/R4?
Between R2 and R3, not much...you can pretty much consider those two
equivalent.
R4 adds some considerable differe
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Equinox is an R4 compliant framework and KF is currently R3, but I have
> heard that they have a new version for R4 in the offing.
>
Thanks, Richard.
In terms of using a minimal OSGi environment for partitioning and
management of class library parts, what differences wo
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> No longer necessary. Neither would it be relevant to this project, nor
>> would it be really interesting, as at the core, the licensing stuff is
>> only useful for obviously trivial setups, and it won't get us what we
>> need.
>
>
> ?
>
See Leo's mail on the differ
Hi guys,
Yes, it is already pluggable at the module level, but perhaps the salient question is whether,
when moving an app across operating system platforms, the app should require a
"reconfiguration" to use, e.g., com.apple.MacOSX.NativeKerberosModule, or
com.microsoft.Windows.NativeKerberos
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
Dalibor Topic wrote
Finally, we'd need to have our own, ASLv2 licensed OSGi implementation.
I am not sure if there is one, but I hope Geir knows more.
We are in luck:
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/felix.html
Yay!
and th
Hello,
[snip]
> Kerberos is used in java in the JAAS framework and GSS-API
> (org.ietf.jgss package).
[snip]
> What about moving all Kerberos functionality to provider layer?
[snip]
> I suggest the following: all public API are just wrappers that calls
> corresponding Kerberos service provider int
A service provider mechanism is aimed to provide an access to some
service implementation. A service can be implemented by different
vendors in quite different ways (different features, favorite bugs :-),
backward compatibility and so on). We can consider Kerberos as some type
of security service a
12 matches
Mail list logo
