On 5/13/08, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rajini Sivaram wrote:
>
> >
> > Can't it just be much simpler than that?
> > > - 1 bundle per dependency JAR
> > > - containing the OSGi metadata describing that JAR and what it
> > > actually
> > > imports/exports?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
Rajini Sivaram wrote:
Can't it just be much simpler than that?
- 1 bundle per dependency JAR
- containing the OSGi metadata describing that JAR and what it actually
imports/exports?
Yes, that is the goal. But unfortunately this is not "simpler" - it requires
some more work with the build. Th
On 5/12/08, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rajini Sivaram wrote:
>
> > At the moment, itest/osgi-tuscany generates a manifest jar file called
> > tuscany-sca-manifest.jar using a copy of the pom in distribution. I was
> > hoping that we could use a single jar for both OSGi a
Rajini Sivaram wrote:
At the moment, itest/osgi-tuscany generates a manifest jar file called
tuscany-sca-manifest.jar using a copy of the pom in distribution. I was
hoping that we could use a single jar for both OSGi and non-OSGi. The list
of virtual 3rd party bundles to be installed and the loc
On 5/10/08, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rajini Sivaram wrote:
>
> > On 5/5/08, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Rajini Sivaram wrote:
> > >
> > > At the moment, I am creating a single virtual 3rd party bundle. For
> > > > the
> > > > longer term, if
Rajini Sivaram wrote:
On 5/5/08, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rajini Sivaram wrote:
At the moment, I am creating a single virtual 3rd party bundle. For the
longer term, if there are use-cases where different Tuscany extensions
require different versions of 3rd party libs,
On 5/5/08, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rajini Sivaram wrote:
>
> >
> > At the moment, I am creating a single virtual 3rd party bundle. For the
> > longer term, if there are use-cases where different Tuscany extensions
> > require different versions of 3rd party libs, we may
Rajini Sivaram wrote:
At the moment, I am creating a single virtual 3rd party bundle. For the
longer term, if there are use-cases where different Tuscany extensions
require different versions of 3rd party libs, we may want to split this into
multiple virtual bundles.
How about having one virt
ant elder wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:40 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here's what I imagined we'd do:
1. add OSGi entries to each of our JAR manifests
2. have developers maintain them and pay attention to imports/exports
3. use the OSGi build to detect API and
I have a new working itest/osgi-tuscany with the following:
1. modules/ are built with OSGi manifest headers using
maven-bundle-plugin
2. For 3rd party jars, a manifest jar is created, similar to
tuscany-sca-manifest.jar from the distribution. It contains the standard
manifest file
On 5/2/08, Graham Charters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Rajini,
>
> FWIW, I agree with starting with 1. I missed your earlier note saying
> you'd be happy to contribute code to do this. Please let me know what
> I can do to help. I'm particularly interested in the 'virtual bundle'
> idea.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:40 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's what I imagined we'd do:
> 1. add OSGi entries to each of our JAR manifests
> 2. have developers maintain them and pay attention to imports/exports
> 3. use the OSGi build to detect API and SPI import/e
Hi Rajini,
FWIW, I agree with starting with 1. I missed your earlier note saying
you'd be happy to contribute code to do this. Please let me know what
I can do to help. I'm particularly interested in the 'virtual bundle'
idea. I took a look at the way the samples are run in
itest/osgi-tuscany
On 5/1/08, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Charters wrote:
>
> > It would seem that the fine-grained/coarse-grained thoughts have
> > people divided. Rajini's note (aside from the fact she has a tonne of
> > experience having done most, if not all, of the OSGi work in T
Simon Laws wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Graham Charters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
It would seem that the fine-grained/coarse-grained thoughts have
people divided. Rajini's note (aside from the fact she has a tonne of
experience having done most, if not all, of the OSGi work in Tusca
Graham Charters wrote:
It would seem that the fine-grained/coarse-grained thoughts have
people divided. Rajini's note (aside from the fact she has a tonne of
experience having done most, if not all, of the OSGi work in Tuscany)
paints a picture where the two are not mutually exclusive. I don't
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Graham Charters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> It would seem that the fine-grained/coarse-grained thoughts have
> people divided. Rajini's note (aside from the fact she has a tonne of
> experience having done most, if not all, of the OSGi work in Tuscany)
> paints a
It would seem that the fine-grained/coarse-grained thoughts have
people divided. Rajini's note (aside from the fact she has a tonne of
experience having done most, if not all, of the OSGi work in Tuscany)
paints a picture where the two are not mutually exclusive. I don't
typically like doing two
Simon Laws wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/1/08, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My 2c:
+1 to promote OSGi to a first class Tuscany runtime environment
+1 for an OSGi continuum build (thinking about a build profile tha
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/1/08, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > My 2c:
> >
> > +1 to promote OSGi to a first class Tuscany runtime environment
> >
> > +1 for an OSGi continuum build (thinking about a build profile t
On 5/1/08, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My 2c:
>
> +1 to promote OSGi to a first class Tuscany runtime environment
>
> +1 for an OSGi continuum build (thinking about a build profile that'll run
> the Tuscany itest suite in an OSGi environment, similar to the profiles we
> h
the generation of manifest
entries, it should be merely some copy-and-paste :-). In fact, we create
virtual bundles all over the place (implementation_osgi, contribution_osgi
and osgi_tuscany). Performance may be an issue, but in terms of getting
something working quickly, this would be the easies
ot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:43 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Improving support for running in OSGi
2008/4/30 Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
"Enforcing" the modularity via OSGi is a good way to validate our
modularity/extensibility story in Tusca
ot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:09 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Improving support for running in OSGi
I think enabling OSGI can help modularity with a clear definition of
package visibility, so we can have a much cleaner "module"
dependencies through osgi bun
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:43 AM
>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Improving support for running in OSGi
>
>
> > 2008/4/30 Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > "Enforcing" the modularity via OSGi is a good way
More comments inline.
Thanks,
Raymond
--
From: "Graham Charters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:43 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Improving support for running in OSGi
2008/4/30 Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
a/show_bug.cgi?id=277).
3 might be the best solution longer term, but is the most work.
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> ------
> From: "Yang Lei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:09 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Improving support for
ng Lei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:09 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Improving support for running in OSGi
I think enabling OSGI can help modularity with a clear definition of
package visibility, so we can have a much cleaner "module"
dependencies through osgi bund
o feed our findings about limitations
> and rooms for improvement back.
> > > Another important thing which I see on the horizon, is the ongoing
> standardization of Distributed OSGi (RFC119) and the benefit to support that
> standard in Tuscany's OSGi bits. So from mid-term perspect
rds,
> Philipp
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Graham Charters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet: Montag, 28. April 2008 09:48
> An: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Betreff: Improving support for running in OSGi
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to get
I suggest to keep
an eye on that as well.
Regards,
Philipp
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Graham Charters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Montag, 28. April 2008 09:48
An: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Betreff: Improving support for running in OSGi
Hi All,
I'd like to get more inv
standard in Tuscany's OSGi bits. So from mid-term perspective I suggest to
> keep an eye on that as well.
>
> Regards,
> Philipp
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Graham Charters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet: Montag, 28. April 2008 09:48
> An: tusc
t: Montag, 28. April 2008 09:48
An: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Betreff: Improving support for running in OSGi
Hi All,
I'd like to get more involved in the OSGi support in Tuscany (both the
modularity work (itest/osgi-tuscany) and the implementation.osgi). I
recently started looking at the w
Hi Simon,
2008/4/28 Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Graham Charters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ant,
> >
> > Thanks for the pointer to the earlier discussion. I can empathise
> > with the problems Rajini was trying to address by having
> > ite
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Graham Charters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi Ant,
>
> Thanks for the pointer to the earlier discussion. I can empathise
> with the problems Rajini was trying to address by having
> itest/osgi-tuscany built regularly and automatically. As for the
> sca-api, yes
Hi Ant,
Thanks for the pointer to the earlier discussion. I can empathise
with the problems Rajini was trying to address by having
itest/osgi-tuscany built regularly and automatically. As for the
sca-api, yes we could add the bundle manifest automatically and that
would be very low hanging fruit
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Graham Charters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to get more involved in the OSGi support in Tuscany (both the
> modularity work (itest/osgi-tuscany) and the implementation.osgi). I
> recently started looking at the work to run Tuscany in OSGi, em
Hi All,
I'd like to get more involved in the OSGi support in Tuscany (both the
modularity work (itest/osgi-tuscany) and the implementation.osgi). I
recently started looking at the work to run Tuscany in OSGi, embodied
in itest/osgi-tuscany and described in the thread entitled
"Classloading in Tus
38 matches
Mail list logo
