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? > > > > > > > > > Yes, that is the goal. But unfortunately this is not "simpler" - it > > requires > > some more work with the build. The code itself works with individual > > meta-data or a collective one. The build at the moment is naive and > > creates > > a single manifest file. > > > > > Maybe I can help, can you say what 'more work with the build' this will > require?
I have modified the code to generate manifest entries for virtual bundles and install 3rd party jars as individual bundles. These bundles export everything in the jar, and import any required package dynamically. itest/osgi-tuscany now installs 200 bundles into OSGi - the performance impact on classloading is quite severe - explicit imports in 3rd party bundles will help improve this, but I am not sure to what extent. The work that still needs to be done is the build-time generation of manifest entries for 3rd party bundles. Based on your comment below, should we start a discussion on whether we can convert 3rd party jars into bundles, rather than generate separate manifests? That would give us a cleaner distribution (and make the build easier). We have been working on the assumption that we cannot modify 3rd party jars, and hence the manifest entries had to be generated and stored separately - hence the virtual bundles. This is the approach that SpringSource for example seems to have chosen > > > for they application platform OSGi repository. IMHO they are on the > > > right > > > path with this. > > > > > > > > > Well, this is not quite the approach SpringSource have taken. > > SpringSource > > repositories contain actual OSGi bundles (jars with OSGi manifest > > entries > > including export/import statements). > > > > It is the approach that SpringSource has taken, or maybe I've not been > clear... I meant 1 bundle per dependency JAR, i.e. that bundle is the JAR > itself. > > From what I have seen and heard so far, > > > Tuscany seems very reluctant to take that step. > > > > That's too bad, as it's the right approach IMO. > > -- > Jean-Sebastien > -- Thank you... Regards, Rajini
