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 bundle import/export on package. I think it will help Tuscany adopters a lot in the scenarios such as: when implementing new implementation type, binding type, or data binding types, there is clear indication which set of packages can be used (exported API/SPI ). So upgrading to new Tuscany level can be as simple as plug and play if there is no API/SPI changes, and version control (multiple version co-existence) can also be made available through OSGI capabilities.
Regards, Yang On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Konradi, Philipp (CT) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > > I'd like to get people's thoughts on whether the idea of 'promoting' > > OSGi is a good one, > IMHO support of OSGi is very important and I glad to see increasing interest > of the community here. > > > and get ideas on how best to proceed. > I personally have currently not a very deep insight into implementation > details yet, but we are currently prototyping and have there also OSGi > services. > What I could offer today is only to 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 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: 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 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. >
