I too am in favor of this and want to thank those who have been doing
the support needed for DS. It does appear that the remaining task is
adding the bundles described. There will undoubtedly be a few kinks but
in the end this is low risk/effort (remaining) and quite high value.
Jeff
John Arthorne wrote:
I would love to see DS put in the
SDK,
and we have been working towards this throughout 3.5. OSGi services
were
fundamentally broken in a lazy-starting system like Eclipse, because
there
was no way in the past for services to be made available without
manually
starting the service provider bundle. DS, in conjunction with the OSGi
4.2 specification support for service registration by lazy-started
bundles,
addresses this long-standing problem and will make OSGi services much
easier
to use in Eclipse.
The remaining problem is that simply
adding the bundles is not enough. Because DS is never referenced
directly
by clients, the bundle needs to be started manually for it to be any
use.
Support for this was added by PDE build late last week:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=260315.
So, I think DS is now ready to go
in.
I had been thinking we should defer this for 3.5 since it is getting
late,
but given the significant interest from the community and low risk, I
think
it's worth doing.
John
Howdy y'all. I like to raise the question of us adding
Equinox DS to the Eclipse SDK. DS provides a powerful way to deal with
OSGi services and in my opinion, greatly simplifies the development of
services. As we forge towards Eclipse 3.5, we made a lot of steps to
make
DS easier to use in the Eclipse SDK without it actually being in the
SDK:
- Prosyst donated a high quality implementation of OSGi DS that made
its
way to the Equinox SDK
- PDE release DS component authoring tools as part of a GSOC project
and
3.5 work
- The DS spec was updated to work better with lazy bundles (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=226575)
Technically, to add DS to the Eclipse SDK all we need to do as add
these
two tiny bundles:
org.eclipse.equinox.ds (.15MB)
org.eclipse.equinox.util (.02MB)
So my request in sending this email out is to get the opinion of
consumers
(anyone who builds applications on top of Eclipse) and producers (the
Eclipse
platform team, especially the Equinox committers). Do consumers see a
benefit
of having DS in the SDK? Does the greater Eclipse team feel comfortable
with having DS in the SDK and may use it in the future potentially?
And if we reach a consensus, it would be great to see DS included with
the Eclipse SDK in the 3.5M6 timeframe. If not, at least we had a fun
discussion
:)
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Chris Aniszczyk_______________________________________________
eclipse-dev mailing list
eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-dev
_______________________________________________
eclipse-dev mailing list
eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-dev
|