Re: [equinox-dev] Transition

[Benjamin Reed <breed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To elaborate BJ's point a bit further. There may be multiple implementations 
of a given service. For example, there are a couple of implementations of the 
HTTPService. The URLStreamHandlerService was specifically designed for 
multiple implementions to be running on the same framework. (As an aside, it 
is also an example of how to use the ServiceRegistry in a situation where you 
would normally use ExtensionPoints.)

The Conditions can also be implemented as extension bundles. I would expect 
the MEG conditions (as well as other application specific conditions) to be 
deployed that way. Some conditions may not use or provide services.

ben

On Tuesday 06 September 2005 05:37 am, hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Well, beyond the framework, the OSGi spec specifies services. But services
> must be implemented by bundles. So it makes more sense for implementations
> to be called bundles.
>
> I also think the bundles(services) component will end up with more than
> bundles which implement OSGi defined services. In the proposal you mention
> things like the Eclipse Extension registry being part of Equinox. Under
> which component will that reside? I would imagine bundles.
>
> BJ Hargrave
> Senior Software Engineer, IBM
> OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance
> hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx
> Office: +1 407 849 9117 Mobile: +1 386 848 3788
>
>
>
> Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 2005-09-06 12:04 AM
> Please respond to
> Equinox development mailing list
>
>
> To
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [equinox-dev] Transition
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Good point.  Do you have some examples?  Keep in mind that the "services"
> component is targetted at implementations of the other parts of the spec,
> not random other function.  How does the full OSGi itself talk about the
> distinction between the core framework and these other parts?
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> BJ Hargrave <hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 09/05/2005 09:51 AM
>
> Please respond to
> Equinox development mailing list
>
>
> To
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [equinox-dev] Transition
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I like it.
>
> Perhaps the organization should be framework/*bundles*/incubator. There
> are many interesting bundles which do not themselves provide services. So
> calling the component bundles rather than services is more general.
>
> BJ Hargrave
> Senior Software Engineer, IBM
> OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance
> hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx
> Office: +1 407 849 9117 Mobile: +1 386 848 3788
>
>
>
> Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 2005-09-03 10:32 PM
> Please respond to
> Equinox development mailing list
>
>
> To
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> cc
>
> Subject
> [equinox-dev] Transition
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There is a move afoot to transition Equinox to the Eclipse PMC and develop
>
> it into an OSGi community.  Please take a minute to review the
> documentation at
>
> http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/indextech.cgi/~checkout~/equinox-home/transi
>tion.html
>
>
> and surface any issues or questions.
>
> Jeff _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev