| Eclipse on OSGi... [message #12075] |
Mon, 10 March 2003 15:45 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: ogruber.us.ibm.com
I am moving this back to top level to avoid going even deeper in the
thread...
Original posting at the end of this message...
> > (1) Eclipse is a set of bundles above OSGi...
> > (2) Eclipse is an OSGi implementation...
Seems that Peter and Jeff agreed that #1 makes more sense,
with #2 being an optimization path...
> Do #1 as the main approach but also do #2 to optimize the cases where
other
> OSGi implementations do not expect the sort of usecase Eclipse
presents.
> That is, #1 cannot assume #2 as requiring our own OSGi implementation
is not
> alot better than what we have today.
As some of you know, I actually tried #1 and even got a prototype
running... that does not mean it works... Eclipse and OSGi have made
incompatible design and semantic decisions... so I would like us to discuss
what it really means to do #1... as I attempted to explain in earlier posts.
I am not going to start again... but we need to list those issues,
understand
which side (Eclipse or OSGi) will bend or compromise on each of those,
and move forward. A very short list would be the following:
- versioning model
- class loading model
- metadata area and plug-in persistent data
- self-hosting
- misc: debuging framework, properties, etc...
While I also prefer #1 for the long term... I don't see how to make
progress without doing #2 first... Since both Eclipse and OSGi will have
to bend and compromise, it seems clear to me that Equinox has to design
and test those evolutions before their official acceptance by both Eclipse
and OSGi,
if it ever happens. Then, Eclipse 3.0 (next release) could run on
implementation
of OSGi 4.0 (next release)...
Best regards,
--
Olivier Gruber, Ph.D.
Persistent & Distributed Object Platforms and Frameworks
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
"pkriens" <Peter.Kriens@aQute.se> wrote in message
news:3E6BA215.7030609@aQute.se...
> Olivier Gruber wrote:
>
> > Peter,
> > I am a little confused here...
>
> I think you resolved that confusion while writing the mail?
>
> > (1) Eclipse is a set of bundles above OSGi...
> > (2) Eclipse is an OSGi implementation...
Just to be painfully pedantic and ensure we are all talking about same
thing...
> Why not both? I would like a model where Equinox would have a separate
> component that is an OSGi implemention heavily optimized for Eclipse use
"component" = technical OSGi term? (I suspect not)
"OSGi implementation" => of the OSGi framework spec?
This is #2 right?
> cases. E.g. 5000 plugins, relatively few active bundles etc. On top of
> that Eclipse runs as a bundle. The cool thing is that it would allow one
"Eclipse runs as a bundle": do you mean "a bunch of bundles" essentially
one per plugin (i.e., #1)?
> to run Eclipse on a framework of SUN, IBM, Siemens, Samsung, Gatespace,
> Acunia, Prosyst, Atinave, Espial, etc. Having a solid spec in the
> middle makes the job easier I think.
My summary of this is:
Do #1 as the main approach but also do #2 to optimize the cases where other
OSGi implementations do not expect the sort of usecase Eclipse presents.
That is, #1 cannot assume #2 as requiring our own OSGi implementation is not
alot better than what we have today.
Concur?
Jeff
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03413 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
