[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re[8]: [equinox-dev] OBR2
|
I think this is the discussion require-bundle versus Import-Package
all over again ... :-)
a priori grouping will favor popular platforms until the extent that
there will be only one dominant platform because is too hard to
support all. (Law of increasing returns). E.g. Microsoft windows.
Without grouping I think it is easier for a management system to
compose a set that is needed, allowing third parties to provide the
glue components.
And I never understood why things are not just merged in a single
bundle if they really have to be together ...
The diversity of the embedded market requires imho a flatter model.
But then again, I guess I am only a theoretician :-(
Kind regards,
Peter Kriens
JM> For the most part. I believe that explicit groups are
JM> necessary. It is natural to group things and then group the
JM> groups etc. Doing this with queries is possible but ends up being
JM> roundabout. Your point about explosion is valid but queries don't
JM> solve the problem. For example, who is going to manage the
JM> queries? How do I tell you about my group? Do I send you my
JM> query? What if someone adds something that matches the query but
JM> I did not intend for that to be part of the group? How do you
JM> compose multiple query-based groups to make a composite group?
JM> Groups can be done in a way that allows you to have your
JM> groups and me to have mine. We can share the group definitions if
JM> we want but do not have to. If shared they can be inthe repo as
JM> first class enties. They (perhaps) can be versioned and express
JM> dependencies of their own.
JM> Jeff
JM> Peter Kriens <Peter.Kriens@xxxxxxxx>
JM> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
JM> 09/25/2005 11:14 AM
JM> Please respond to
JM> Equinox development mailing list
JM> To
JM> Jeff McAffer/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCAcc
JM> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>Subject
JM> Re[6]: [equinox-dev] OBR2
JM> I think we agree ...
JM> The repo metadata should have no semantic knowledge of its contents.
JM> The requirements/capabilities should be generic. When you import you
JM> translate the specific (import-package, require-bundle, scree=128x256,
JM> etc) requirements to generics. This means that the repo does not need
JM> to have semantic knowledge.
JM> However, a group should be the result of a query and not explicitly
JM> submitted to the repo. If you do that, you always end up in a
JM> combinatorial explosion of groups. The diversity out there is so high
JM> ... which en then usually means only 1 configuration is supported.
JM> Works maybe for Windows, but OSGi needs something more flexible imho
JM> because portability is at the root.
JM> Kind regards,
JM> Peter Kriens
JM>> Just to clarify what I after is not having to author two sets
JM>> of metadata. From a repository USER's point of view I have a
JM>> bundle, I add it to the repo. I need a bundle, I query the repo
JM>> and get the thing I need/want. When adding a bundle to the repo
JM>> the repo itself should interrogate the bundle and find any
JM>> dependencies.
JM>> There is a challenge in that there may be dependencies that
JM>> cannot be detected. For example, we have this in our Help setup
JM>> where help needs an appserver. Typically Tomcat is supplied but
JM>> there may well be others. You would not want to spec help to
JM>> depend on Tomcat. If we were using services then you would spec
JM>> Help to need the webapp service. Perhaps when we have declarative
JM>> services that will be a possibility but there will still be such
JM>> scenarios where the public contract implied by services is not
JM>> appropriate and alternative mechanisms (e.g., the extension
JM>> registry) are used.
JM>> Grouping bundles is an interesting notion that solves this
JM>> issue as well as allows function producers to explicitly declare
JM>> sets of bundles that go together. A bundle group can simply be
JM>> viewed as a bundle that aggregates the constituent parts. However
JM>> it is actually represented it is just a unit that exports the
JM>> union of the exports in its contents and imports/required the
JM>> union of its prerequisites. etc.
JM>> Expressing or representing these capabilties and requirements
JM>> in an an open, extensible way is goodness.
JM>> Jeff
JM>> Peter Kriens <Peter.Kriens@xxxxxxxx>
JM>> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
JM>> 09/23/2005 12:16 PM
JM>> Please respond to
JM>> Equinox development mailing list
JM>> To
JM>> Thomas Watson <tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx>cc
JM>> Equinox development mailing list
JM>> <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, heavy@ungoverned.orgSubject
JM>> Re[4]: [equinox-dev] OBR2
JM>> Good idea, but I assume it can be used to generate the meta data?
JM>> I think this is an example where the generic requirements capability
JM>> model shines. We will have lots of dependencies that need to be
JM>> modeled. Modeling them semantically in the repo format will make the
JM>> repo format a major spec work undertaking.
JM>> Kind regards,
JM>> Peter Kriens
TW>>> Can we use SCR's component XML definition for service
TW>>> dependancies? Even if the bundle does not use SCR directly can we
TW>>> still use this schema to define service dependancies? I would not
TW>>> want to define a whole new schema for this.
TW>>> Richard, are you subsribed the the equinox-dev mailing list?
TW>>> If not, please do so we don't have to keep cc'ing you on the
TW>>> mails :)
TW>>> Thomas Watson
TW>>> Pervasive Development
TW>>> Phone: 512-838-4533 Tie: 678-4533
TW>>> tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx
TW>>> equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 09/23/2005 08:34:11 AM:
>>>> Agree ... if it is not in the manifest, we can't generate it. But it
>>>> is nice to populate a repo with only the data from the manifests and
>>>> get reasonable results.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Peter Kriens
>>>>
>>>> RSH> Peter Kriens wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>It absolutely MUST be possible to generate the metadata from the
>>>> >>manifest.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> RSH> Well, it is not possible given the current state of bundle manifests to
>>>> RSH> generate all repository metadata. For example, there is no way to
>>>> RSH> generate service dependencies.
>>>>
>>>> RSH> If someone invents a new capability/requirement pair, there will be no
>>>> RSH> way to generate it either.
>>>>
>>>> RSH> For the standard package/module-related stuff, we can generate them from
>>>> RSH> the manifest.
>>>>
>>>> ->> richard
>>>>
>>>> RSH> _______________________________________________
>>>> RSH> equinox-dev mailing list
>>>> RSH> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> RSH> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Peter Kriens Mob +33633746480
>>>> 9C, Avenue St. Drézéry Tel +33467542167
>>>> 34160 Beaulieu, France Tel +15123514821
>>>> Tel +33870447986
>>>> AOL,Yahoo, Skype pkriens ICQ 255570717
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> equinox-dev mailing list
>>>> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
JM>>
JM>> --
JM>> Peter Kriens Mob +33633746480
JM>> 9C, Avenue St. Drézéry Tel +33467542167
JM>> 34160 Beaulieu, France Tel +15123514821
JM>> Tel +33870447986
JM>> AOL,Yahoo, Skype pkriens ICQ 255570717
JM>> _______________________________________________
JM>> equinox-dev mailing list
JM>> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
JM>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
JM>
JM> --
JM> Peter Kriens Mob +33633746480
JM> 9C, Avenue St. Drézéry Tel +33467542167
JM> 34160 Beaulieu, France Tel +15123514821
JM> Tel +33870447986
JM> AOL,Yahoo, Skype pkriens ICQ 255570717
JM> _______________________________________________
JM> equinox-dev mailing list
JM> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
JM> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
--
Peter Kriens Mob +33633746480
9C, Avenue St. Drézéry Tel +33467542167
34160 Beaulieu, France Tel +15123514821
Tel +33870447986
AOL,Yahoo, Skype pkriens ICQ 255570717
