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 we could add the bundle manifest automatically and that > would be very low hanging fruit. We can do this because it happens to > match one of the five bundles created in itest/osgi-tuscany. My > concern would be that this doesn't seem to address the main issues > which Rajini originally raised. We would need to do something > different for the other 4 bundles (or however many we might build in > the future). > > > Regards, > > Graham. > > On 28/04/2008, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > > Graham Sounds like a good idea to me too. Also just doing the sca-api in the first case, as Ant suggests, starts us off down the road of testing multi-classloader configurations. I'm assuming that some of the osgi-tuscany testing can be used to make sure it does work. Thinking about the wider generation of bundles. IMHO to make this work the association of modules with bundles needs to be business as usual rather and an extra pom to edit as it is now, e.g. could be through reorganizing modules into a new directory structure or associating some parameter with a module which indicates which bundle it is in. This needs some investigation as I feel that there is lack of clarity about how modules should be assigned to bundles given our current structure. When it comes to building it still feels like OSGi packaging is a "distribution" build step rather than a development time step. If we had enough in the development build to prove that it worked could we defer the full OSGi packaging process to the continuum distribution build and the distribution build used when we do a release? Simon
