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, embodied > in itest/osgi-tuscany and described in the thread entitled > "Classloading in Tuscany". I've noticed a couple of others on the > list also interested in Tuscany running in OSGi and wondered if it > might be worth considering making this a "first-class" option. At the > moment the five bundles are only built by folks who want the OSGi > support and go into the itest/osgi-tuscany directory to create it. > This can result in any problems being discovered late, but also could > create the impression that OSGi is considered a second-class > environment (which I don't believe is the case). > > Aside from the obvious benefits to OSGi users in doing this, I think > there's a potential for Tuscany to use the OSGi build as a test-bed > for highlighting and working through modularity issues, which would > also benefit Tuscany in general, not just in an OSGi runtime. > > I'd like to get people's thoughts on whether the idea of 'promoting' > OSGi is a good one, and get ideas on how best to proceed. We could > then start discussing what some of the issues might be (e.g. size of > builds, time to build, etc...). > > Regards, > > Graham. > Sounds good to me - having you get more involved in Tuscany, making OSGi support a more first class part of Tuscany, using that to help improve Tuscany modularity - they all seem like fine things. I agree it would be good to promote Tuscany using OSGi, there's growing interest in using OSGi and having good Tuscany OSGi integration can only help improve adoption and our user base. As a small step in this direction how about making the Tuscany sca-api module a proper OSGi bundle as discussed here - http://apache.markmail.org/message/hf5ekr3dpnlzrrcn ...ant
