aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremias Maerki <...@jeremias-maerki.ch>
Subject Re: [SPI Fly] Interest for a more dynamic plug-in/service discovery API?
Date Mon, 08 Oct 2012 08:47:00 GMT
Hi David

Great! I think the process should be easy:
- We decide on a (package) name.
- I change the package structure after that decision.
- I'll try to come up with a POM (I'm no big Mavener)
- I put together a submission which I'll upload to JIRA.
- It is debatable whether I need to file a code grant but I have
developed that all by myself and I'm an ASF member (with an ICLA on file).
It's also not that big a contribution. So I don't think this is
necessary.
- The Aries committership votes on acceptance.

So, back to naming. What shall it be?
- org.apache.aries.spifly.consumer
- org.apache.aries.spifly.discovery
- org.apache.aries.discovery
- org.apache.aries.plugin.discovery
- org.apache.aries.spi.catch ;-)
- other ideas?

Cheers,
Jeremias Maerki


On 08.10.2012 10:02:32 David Bosschaert wrote:
> Hi Jeremias,
> 
> On 5 October 2012 14:58, Jeremias Maerki <dev@jeremias-maerki.ch> wrote:
> >> Next question is would it make sense to add this functionality to Aries?
> >> I think it does. To me many of the ideas in here match with the OSGi
> >> Connect RFP 145 (http://www.osgi.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=145) and
> >> I think that, besides its practical use today, this code could be a
> >> valuable input to the standardization process of OSGi Connect. Overall
> >> the charter of OSGi Connect is to create a dynamic services
> >> environment that works both inside OSGi and out. To me the overall
> >> goal of your code seems similar.
> >> If we all agree that it would be suitable for this component to reside
> >> in Aries, I think we should strive to make it ultimately compliant
> >> with the OSGi Connect spec, when that's available.
> >>
> >> Does this make sense to you?
> >
> > As I understand it OSGi Connect's goal is to use a subset of the OSGi
> > framework (most importantly the service layer but not the module layer).
> > So you can use the OSGi ServiceTracker to lookup services. In that case,
> > my library isn't needed and probably not very useful, since it actually
> > strives not to use OSGi APIs at all. So, I'm not quite getting your
> > point here. I got about one too many hints that some people may have
> > reservations when introducing OSGi to a plain Java project ("Do we all
> > have to learn OSGi? Can I still use X in plain Java? etc."). OSGi,
> > unfortunately, is still not as widely adopted as I would like. I've
> > noticed how a low-level ServiceTracker can provoke reactions like: "Does
> > it have to be that complicated?" At least, until they get the power of
> > it. So, my main goal was to really just shield everyone from OSGi as
> > much as possible. Basically, I just wanted to provide an easy migration
> > path without the requirement to learn about OSGi beyond including
> > manifest metadata. If my thingy helps OSGi Connect, that's great but I
> > frankly don't see how. I'm probably still missing something.
> 
> I get your point. From a very high level both OSGi Connect and your
> project aim at getting to use OSGi easier, however OSGi Connect
> strives to do this by introducing the OSGi APIs early (before the
> modularity layer) whereas your approach strives to do this by
> introducing the OSGi APIs late (or not at all, even).
> 
> Personally I think choice is good and it's up to the users to really
> decide what technology they want to use. I think your technology would
> be at the right place in Apache Aries, so if you're happy to donate it
> I would be happy to support that and I can find out the process by
> which this should be done.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> David


Mime
View raw message