Hi and thank you, What I take from this is that there will never be a fully standardized way of doing what Felix OBR does (or at least not in a foreseeble future) so I don't have to "feel bad" in picking a specific implementation. Part of my concern was picking an implementation only to find out that there is a standard way of doing the same thing in the pipeline of spec-writers.
Thanks for the responses! Best regards, Per-Erik Svensson On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org>wrote: > On 4/18/12 08:12 , Neil Bartlett wrote: > >> I assume you're talking about the new Resolver and Repository >> specifications that are in the OSGi Enterprise R5 release? Because "OBR" is >> properly the name for the Felix implementation, which has been available >> and released for several years. >> >> An early draft release of the Enterprise R5 spec was made publicly >> available in March and can be downloaded now from the OSGi site. The >> official final release of these specs will be some time later, depending on >> votes and lawyers etc, however the technical content is very unlikely to >> change. >> >> I believe that the Felix org.apache.felix.**bundlerepository >> implementation will NOT be updated to comply with the new R5 specs. Richard >> is working on the RI for the R5 spec within Felix but it is new code, based >> on the resolver in the core Felix framework. >> > > I would like to see the Felix OBR implementation evolve to use the new R5 > resolver and repository specs, for sure. > > Per-Erik, your confusion is likely due to the fact that the scope of > RFC-112 has changed over the course of its lifetime. Originally, it was an > API that was the precise basis for the Felix OBR implementation. Over time, > some holes were discovered in the API and Felix OBR evolved into having its > own API and well as supporting the original RFC-112. > > During the spec process for RFC-112, it became clear that the scope was > too big (and there were too many bike shed issues) to complete it in a > reasonable amount of time, so the scope was pared back (even then it still > took a long time to complete). So, originally, RFC-112 dealt with > repositories, resolving, and deployment/provisioning, but now it only deals > with repositories and resolving. Further, there is no direct relationship > between the repositories and resolving. > > In short, it became more low-level and only provides some of the building > blocks necessary to implement something like Felix OBR. So, yes, I'd like > to see Felix OBR built on top of these new building blocks, but in the end > it will still require that you tie yourself to a specific implementation to > get the full features of the current Felix OBR. > > -> richard > > > > >> Regards >> Neil >> >> >> On Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 13:01, Per-Erik Svensson wrote: >> >> Hi, >>> >>> Is there any timeframe on the release of OBR (the api, not the felix >>> implementation). I know this might not be the right place to ask but... I >>> figured that people like Richard, Peter or Neil would be able to answer >>> and >>> I know they subscribe. :) >>> >>> The reason I ask is because I'm thinking of using the Felix >>> implementation >>> of the API (org.apache.felix.**bundlerepository) but before commiting >>> to this >>> I would like to know if that implementation is supposed to be fully >>> compliant with the spec and if the spec will ever get released. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Per-Erik Svensson >>> >>> >>> >> >> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > users-unsubscribe@felix.**apache.org<users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org > >
