| OSGi framework implementation? [message #25068] |
Tue, 27 May 2003 11:19  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: sddg.yahoo.com
Which one is intended for use in Equinox?
Obviously it must not be a commercial one and there are several of those
(GPL) all found on sourceforge.net : oscar, servicetango, oxygen, dcserver
But they cover OSGi spec 2.0 and not the recently released OSGi spec 3.0.
|
|
|
| Re: OSGi framework implementation? [message #25109 is a reply to message #25068] |
Tue, 27 May 2003 12:51  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: g.wagenknecht.intershop.de
"Sui Ma" <sddg@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bavhjv$nat$2@rogue.oti.com...
> Which one is intended for use in Equinox?
>
> Obviously it must not be a commercial one and there are several of those
> (GPL) all found on sourceforge.net : oscar, servicetango, oxygen, dcserver
As far as I know oscar recently changed to the Apache license and onf of the
developers (Richard S. Hall) is doing a lot of refactoring and
implementation work for 3.0.
Cu, Gunnar
|
|
|
| Re: OSGi framework implementation? [message #25150 is a reply to message #25109] |
Tue, 27 May 2003 13:59 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: sddg.yahoo.com
What are the main differences between the Apache License and the GPL?
and something else concerning OSCAR - it has the fastest LDAP filter
matching performance of all OSGi framework implementations that I know of
(both commercial and open source)
It is also the most active of all open source implementations in terms of
source contribution
If its next release really supports OSGi 3.0 then it is an excellent choice.
"Gunnar Wagenknecht" <g.wagenknecht@intershop.de> wrote in message
news:bavn0b$rn7$1@rogue.oti.com...
> "Sui Ma" <sddg@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:bavhjv$nat$2@rogue.oti.com...
> > Which one is intended for use in Equinox?
> >
> > Obviously it must not be a commercial one and there are several of those
> > (GPL) all found on sourceforge.net : oscar, servicetango, oxygen,
dcserver
>
> As far as I know oscar recently changed to the Apache license and onf of
the
> developers (Richard S. Hall) is doing a lot of refactoring and
> implementation work for 3.0.
>
> Cu, Gunnar
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: OSGi framework implementation? [message #25191 is a reply to message #25150] |
Tue, 27 May 2003 18:11 |
 Mel Martinez
Messages: 44
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Sui Ma wrote:
> What are the main differences between the Apache License and the GPL?
>
Basically, the main difference (for most folks) is that the Apache
License is specifically designed to allow the integration of the
component into third-party products, including commercial ones and of
course projects under other types of open-source licenses (for example,
Eclipse, which is distributed under the Common Public License includes
amongst it's parts both tomcat and ant, which are Apache projects.
IBM's Websphere Studio Application Developer (WSAD), an obviously
commercial product, is based in turn on Eclipse.
GPL requires that projects that incorporate it also be released under
GPL terms.
There is a lot more to this subject than this very simple treatment.
Please hit Google (or your personal favorite search engine) up for more
details.
Any OSGi framework implementation that is to be used by Eclipse must, of
course be available with an appropriate license. The Apache Software
License would work, as would the CPL and various other derivatives of
the 'modified' BSD license.
|
|
|
| Re: OSGi framework implementation? [message #25272 is a reply to message #25150] |
Wed, 28 May 2003 13:45 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: d3l3t3-heavy-n0sp4m.ungoverned.org
I switched Oscar to Apache licensing to facilitate its usage in
proprietary scenarios...
Oscar (for a month or so) supports some OSGi 3.0 features, such as
dynamic package import, URL handler service, and maybe another minor
point or two. It will NOT, however, be fully 3.0 compliant on the next
release. I implement features as I find the time or need or if people
complain loudly enough. :^) The goal is 3.0 compliance for the
framework and framework-related services; I will not be providing all
services, only those tied to the framework implementation.
Oscar is in the middle of a major re-engineering effort, but not to
support OSGi 3.0...I don't think there is anything in the spec that
would require such an effort. I am re-engineering Oscar for two reasons:
1. To simplify my concurrency handling, because it is too complicated in
the current version of Oscar.
2. To re-write Oscar's class loading to use my new ModuleLoader class
loader. The idea behind the ModuleLoader is to create a policy-driven
class loader so that projects that require custom class loading do not
need to create a class loader from scratch, but only need to "plug in"
their specific policy implementations. I hope to have some documentation
on this within the next two weeks. Currently, the re-engineering
effort is almost done, I just need to really study the concurrency
changes and re-verify the OSGi security issues. I will post a developer
release of this new version of Oscar soon, for compatibility testing.
-> richard
Sui Ma wrote:
> What are the main differences between the Apache License and the GPL?
>
> and something else concerning OSCAR - it has the fastest LDAP filter
> matching performance of all OSGi framework implementations that I know of
> (both commercial and open source)
>
> It is also the most active of all open source implementations in terms of
> source contribution
>
> If its next release really supports OSGi 3.0 then it is an excellent choice.
>
>
> "Gunnar Wagenknecht" <g.wagenknecht@intershop.de> wrote in message
> news:bavn0b$rn7$1@rogue.oti.com...
>
>>"Sui Ma" <sddg@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:bavhjv$nat$2@rogue.oti.com...
>>
>>>Which one is intended for use in Equinox?
>>>
>>>Obviously it must not be a commercial one and there are several of those
>>>(GPL) all found on sourceforge.net : oscar, servicetango, oxygen,
>
> dcserver
>
>>As far as I know oscar recently changed to the Apache license and onf of
>
> the
>
>>developers (Richard S. Hall) is doing a lot of refactoring and
>>implementation work for 3.0.
>>
>>Cu, Gunnar
>>
>>
>
>
>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02727 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
