[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [iot-wg] Why use concierge?
|
Hi Jens
Answer embedded.
On 24/04/2014 4:52 AM, Jens Reimann wrote:
Hello Pascal,
I don't want to sound negative, but from the viewpoint of Eclipse SCADA
we are pretty happy with Equinox ;-)
But we also learned, the hard way, that Equinox seems to make a lot of
"special things". That might be easier at first, but creates problems
when other OSGi containers become a topic. At the moment we are not able
to deploy to other OSGi containers since we need P2 and EMF
For EMF we really do need EMF. But for P2, we only require a some sort
of build -> provision toolchain. Which is Maven Tycho (p2) -> P2
Director at the moment.
Our long term goal is to also have other, more pure, OSGi containers.
Also not needing any native code in order to launch the framework. And
for this we would like to use technology coming from the Eclipse eco-system.
The framework can be started w/o the native launcher. For example
you can start the Eclipse IDE by running java -jar
plugins/org.eclipse.equinox.launcher_....jar and you can also directly
start equinox itself in a similar way (java -jar
org.eclipse.osgi_...jar). You can also see code embedding Equinox in Tycho.
For this we would need Declarative Services (DS) and some sort of
provision mechanism. P2 is a bit bulky, but works fine for our case. We
do use the P2 director to assemble our applications (depending from the
System Configuration the user created). This done on either the
configuration machine or the target machine. There is no "online
update". So if we have a system configuration with 10 servers and each
server has 2 different applications, all applications are provisioned
using the P2 director from the initial set of P2 repositories.
It is true that p2 is a bit bulky and is currently known to only
run on Equinox. However p2 has been designed to run and provision other
frameworks. In fact back when we started we were able to provision
Felix. At this point I don't know exactly what it would take to make
that work again, but I think this is in the real of possibilities.
The other thing you may be interested in is in knowing that there
has been designs and prototypes done in p2 to make it work "after the
fact". Meaning that you would not need to have the p2 folder and all
that in your application. Instead p2 would be able to reason about the
currently installed bundle and take it from there to perform the
installation (still bringing transactionality and dependency resolution).
However we also see a shift at the moment from this deployment scheme,
to a more distributed scheme. In the the past we had two big servers,
and that's it. At the moment systems go up to 20 different nodes which
are (compared to then) less powerful. And we now start to have ARM based
devices which will have even less performance and greater numbers.
So in the end the three most important reasons for us to move to a
different OSGi container are:
-) Better provisioning
Maybe a topic of the p2-dev mailing list, but I would be interested
in knowing what are the criteria for a better provisioning.
-) Less (or better no) native dependencies (launcher)
See note above.
-) Better compatibility with OSGi
I m assume you mean more independence from Equinox in your
application, or do you have something else in mind
Thanks
Pascal
Jens
On 04/23/2014 06:19 PM, Pascal Rapicault wrote:
Hi,
Since Concierge has been released, I noticed a lot of interest from
the variou IoT projects to move to concierge from Equinox and I would
like to understand the motivation of such a move? I can obviously get
the size argument, but is there more to it?
Thanks
Pascal
_______________________________________________
iot-wg mailing list
iot-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
_______________________________________________
iot-wg mailing list
iot-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
