You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@felix.apache.org by Per-Erik Svensson <pe...@gmail.com> on 2012/04/18 14:01:14 UTC
Bundle Repository
Hi,
Is there any timeframe on the release of OBR (the api, not the felix
implementation). I know this might not be the right place to ask but... I
figured that people like Richard, Peter or Neil would be able to answer and
I know they subscribe. :)
The reason I ask is because I'm thinking of using the Felix implementation
of the API (org.apache.felix.bundlerepository) but before commiting to this
I would like to know if that implementation is supposed to be fully
compliant with the spec and if the spec will ever get released.
Best regards,
Per-Erik Svensson
Re: Bundle Repository
Posted by Per-Erik Svensson <pe...@gmail.com>.
Hi and thanks to both of you,
I'm talking about RFC-0112 Bundle
Repository<http://www.osgi.org/download/rfc-0112_BundleRepository.pdf>as
I thought that would be part of an osgi spec in the future in one form
or another (in the compendium part maybe). I'm also guessing this is what
the new Resolver and Repository in R5 is based off of?
What I'm really trying to figure out is a way to do what "OBR" (felix
implementation) does but in a standardized way so that I'm not necessarily
tied to a single implementation. I've also been looking at P2 from eclipse
but figured it was a bit too heavy-weight and eclipse-centered for my taste.
So, tools like maven-bundle-plugin and Bindex, will they be rewritten to
conform to the R5 spec of the Resolver/Repository or are those "tied" to
"OBR"?
What is the correct way to make a "future-proof" solution? I thought that
the jar on felix's homepage named "OSGi OBR service API" was something that
was official OSGi-spec but in draft form, and that
"org.apache.felix.bundlerepository" was Felix's implementation of the
draft. What I get from you guys now, it is maybe better to wait a few weeks
and use the things in R5 instead?
Sorry if I sound confused. I am! :)
Best regards,
Per-Erik Svensson
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Neil Bartlett <nj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I assume you're talking about the new Resolver and Repository
> specifications that are in the OSGi Enterprise R5 release? Because "OBR" is
> properly the name for the Felix implementation, which has been available
> and released for several years.
>
> An early draft release of the Enterprise R5 spec was made publicly
> available in March and can be downloaded now from the OSGi site. The
> official final release of these specs will be some time later, depending on
> votes and lawyers etc, however the technical content is very unlikely to
> change.
>
> I believe that the Felix org.apache.felix.bundlerepository implementation
> will NOT be updated to comply with the new R5 specs. Richard is working on
> the RI for the R5 spec within Felix but it is new code, based on the
> resolver in the core Felix framework.
>
> Regards
> Neil
>
>
> On Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 13:01, Per-Erik Svensson wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there any timeframe on the release of OBR (the api, not the felix
> > implementation). I know this might not be the right place to ask but... I
> > figured that people like Richard, Peter or Neil would be able to answer
> and
> > I know they subscribe. :)
> >
> > The reason I ask is because I'm thinking of using the Felix
> implementation
> > of the API (org.apache.felix.bundlerepository) but before commiting to
> this
> > I would like to know if that implementation is supposed to be fully
> > compliant with the spec and if the spec will ever get released.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Per-Erik Svensson
> >
> >
>
>
>
Re: Bundle Repository
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
Hi Per-Erik,
You might want to have a look at the Subsystems spec, Chapter 134 in
OSGi Enterprise R5. It covers some of the provisioning areas, although
I'm not sure how much overlap there is with the Felix OBR provisioning
features. There are a number of Subsystem implementations in the
works, both in Apache and Eclipse, and possibly elsewhere.
Best regards,
David
On 18 April 2012 16:44, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
> On 4/18/12 11:16 , Per-Erik Svensson wrote:
>>
>> Hi and thank you,
>>
>> What I take from this is that there will never be a fully standardized way
>> of doing what Felix OBR does (or at least not in a foreseeble future) so I
>> don't have to "feel bad" in picking a specific implementation. Part of my
>> concern was picking an implementation only to find out that there is a
>> standard way of doing the same thing in the pipeline of spec-writers.
>
>
> Yes, there currently isn't a standard way in the pipeline, but never say
> never.
>
> -> richard
>
>
>>
>> Thanks for the responses!
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Per-Erik Svensson
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Richard S.
>> Hall<he...@ungoverned.org>wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/18/12 08:12 , Neil Bartlett wrote:
>>>
>>>> I assume you're talking about the new Resolver and Repository
>>>> specifications that are in the OSGi Enterprise R5 release? Because "OBR"
>>>> is
>>>> properly the name for the Felix implementation, which has been available
>>>> and released for several years.
>>>>
>>>> An early draft release of the Enterprise R5 spec was made publicly
>>>> available in March and can be downloaded now from the OSGi site. The
>>>> official final release of these specs will be some time later, depending
>>>> on
>>>> votes and lawyers etc, however the technical content is very unlikely to
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that the Felix org.apache.felix.**bundlerepository
>>>> implementation will NOT be updated to comply with the new R5 specs.
>>>> Richard
>>>> is working on the RI for the R5 spec within Felix but it is new code,
>>>> based
>>>> on the resolver in the core Felix framework.
>>>>
>>> I would like to see the Felix OBR implementation evolve to use the new R5
>>> resolver and repository specs, for sure.
>>>
>>> Per-Erik, your confusion is likely due to the fact that the scope of
>>> RFC-112 has changed over the course of its lifetime. Originally, it was
>>> an
>>> API that was the precise basis for the Felix OBR implementation. Over
>>> time,
>>> some holes were discovered in the API and Felix OBR evolved into having
>>> its
>>> own API and well as supporting the original RFC-112.
>>>
>>> During the spec process for RFC-112, it became clear that the scope was
>>> too big (and there were too many bike shed issues) to complete it in a
>>> reasonable amount of time, so the scope was pared back (even then it
>>> still
>>> took a long time to complete). So, originally, RFC-112 dealt with
>>> repositories, resolving, and deployment/provisioning, but now it only
>>> deals
>>> with repositories and resolving. Further, there is no direct relationship
>>> between the repositories and resolving.
>>>
>>> In short, it became more low-level and only provides some of the building
>>> blocks necessary to implement something like Felix OBR. So, yes, I'd like
>>> to see Felix OBR built on top of these new building blocks, but in the
>>> end
>>> it will still require that you tie yourself to a specific implementation
>>> to
>>> get the full features of the current Felix OBR.
>>>
>>> -> richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 13:01, Per-Erik Svensson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any timeframe on the release of OBR (the api, not the felix
>>>>> implementation). I know this might not be the right place to ask but...
>>>>> I
>>>>> figured that people like Richard, Peter or Neil would be able to answer
>>>>> and
>>>>> I know they subscribe. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason I ask is because I'm thinking of using the Felix
>>>>> implementation
>>>>> of the API (org.apache.felix.**bundlerepository) but before commiting
>>>>> to this
>>>>> I would like to know if that implementation is supposed to be fully
>>>>> compliant with the spec and if the spec will ever get released.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Per-Erik Svensson
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> users-unsubscribe@felix.**apache.org<us...@felix.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Bundle Repository
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 4/18/12 11:16 , Per-Erik Svensson wrote:
> Hi and thank you,
>
> What I take from this is that there will never be a fully standardized way
> of doing what Felix OBR does (or at least not in a foreseeble future) so I
> don't have to "feel bad" in picking a specific implementation. Part of my
> concern was picking an implementation only to find out that there is a
> standard way of doing the same thing in the pipeline of spec-writers.
Yes, there currently isn't a standard way in the pipeline, but never say
never.
-> richard
>
> Thanks for the responses!
>
> Best regards,
> Per-Erik Svensson
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org>wrote:
>
>> On 4/18/12 08:12 , Neil Bartlett wrote:
>>
>>> I assume you're talking about the new Resolver and Repository
>>> specifications that are in the OSGi Enterprise R5 release? Because "OBR" is
>>> properly the name for the Felix implementation, which has been available
>>> and released for several years.
>>>
>>> An early draft release of the Enterprise R5 spec was made publicly
>>> available in March and can be downloaded now from the OSGi site. The
>>> official final release of these specs will be some time later, depending on
>>> votes and lawyers etc, however the technical content is very unlikely to
>>> change.
>>>
>>> I believe that the Felix org.apache.felix.**bundlerepository
>>> implementation will NOT be updated to comply with the new R5 specs. Richard
>>> is working on the RI for the R5 spec within Felix but it is new code, based
>>> on the resolver in the core Felix framework.
>>>
>> I would like to see the Felix OBR implementation evolve to use the new R5
>> resolver and repository specs, for sure.
>>
>> Per-Erik, your confusion is likely due to the fact that the scope of
>> RFC-112 has changed over the course of its lifetime. Originally, it was an
>> API that was the precise basis for the Felix OBR implementation. Over time,
>> some holes were discovered in the API and Felix OBR evolved into having its
>> own API and well as supporting the original RFC-112.
>>
>> During the spec process for RFC-112, it became clear that the scope was
>> too big (and there were too many bike shed issues) to complete it in a
>> reasonable amount of time, so the scope was pared back (even then it still
>> took a long time to complete). So, originally, RFC-112 dealt with
>> repositories, resolving, and deployment/provisioning, but now it only deals
>> with repositories and resolving. Further, there is no direct relationship
>> between the repositories and resolving.
>>
>> In short, it became more low-level and only provides some of the building
>> blocks necessary to implement something like Felix OBR. So, yes, I'd like
>> to see Felix OBR built on top of these new building blocks, but in the end
>> it will still require that you tie yourself to a specific implementation to
>> get the full features of the current Felix OBR.
>>
>> -> richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Regards
>>> Neil
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 13:01, Per-Erik Svensson wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>> Is there any timeframe on the release of OBR (the api, not the felix
>>>> implementation). I know this might not be the right place to ask but... I
>>>> figured that people like Richard, Peter or Neil would be able to answer
>>>> and
>>>> I know they subscribe. :)
>>>>
>>>> The reason I ask is because I'm thinking of using the Felix
>>>> implementation
>>>> of the API (org.apache.felix.**bundlerepository) but before commiting
>>>> to this
>>>> I would like to know if that implementation is supposed to be fully
>>>> compliant with the spec and if the spec will ever get released.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Per-Erik Svensson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.**apache.org<us...@felix.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Bundle Repository
Posted by Per-Erik Svensson <pe...@gmail.com>.
Hi and thank you,
What I take from this is that there will never be a fully standardized way
of doing what Felix OBR does (or at least not in a foreseeble future) so I
don't have to "feel bad" in picking a specific implementation. Part of my
concern was picking an implementation only to find out that there is a
standard way of doing the same thing in the pipeline of spec-writers.
Thanks for the responses!
Best regards,
Per-Erik Svensson
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org>wrote:
> On 4/18/12 08:12 , Neil Bartlett wrote:
>
>> I assume you're talking about the new Resolver and Repository
>> specifications that are in the OSGi Enterprise R5 release? Because "OBR" is
>> properly the name for the Felix implementation, which has been available
>> and released for several years.
>>
>> An early draft release of the Enterprise R5 spec was made publicly
>> available in March and can be downloaded now from the OSGi site. The
>> official final release of these specs will be some time later, depending on
>> votes and lawyers etc, however the technical content is very unlikely to
>> change.
>>
>> I believe that the Felix org.apache.felix.**bundlerepository
>> implementation will NOT be updated to comply with the new R5 specs. Richard
>> is working on the RI for the R5 spec within Felix but it is new code, based
>> on the resolver in the core Felix framework.
>>
>
> I would like to see the Felix OBR implementation evolve to use the new R5
> resolver and repository specs, for sure.
>
> Per-Erik, your confusion is likely due to the fact that the scope of
> RFC-112 has changed over the course of its lifetime. Originally, it was an
> API that was the precise basis for the Felix OBR implementation. Over time,
> some holes were discovered in the API and Felix OBR evolved into having its
> own API and well as supporting the original RFC-112.
>
> During the spec process for RFC-112, it became clear that the scope was
> too big (and there were too many bike shed issues) to complete it in a
> reasonable amount of time, so the scope was pared back (even then it still
> took a long time to complete). So, originally, RFC-112 dealt with
> repositories, resolving, and deployment/provisioning, but now it only deals
> with repositories and resolving. Further, there is no direct relationship
> between the repositories and resolving.
>
> In short, it became more low-level and only provides some of the building
> blocks necessary to implement something like Felix OBR. So, yes, I'd like
> to see Felix OBR built on top of these new building blocks, but in the end
> it will still require that you tie yourself to a specific implementation to
> get the full features of the current Felix OBR.
>
> -> richard
>
>
>
>
>> Regards
>> Neil
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 13:01, Per-Erik Svensson wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Is there any timeframe on the release of OBR (the api, not the felix
>>> implementation). I know this might not be the right place to ask but... I
>>> figured that people like Richard, Peter or Neil would be able to answer
>>> and
>>> I know they subscribe. :)
>>>
>>> The reason I ask is because I'm thinking of using the Felix
>>> implementation
>>> of the API (org.apache.felix.**bundlerepository) but before commiting
>>> to this
>>> I would like to know if that implementation is supposed to be fully
>>> compliant with the spec and if the spec will ever get released.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Per-Erik Svensson
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.**apache.org<us...@felix.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
>
Re: Bundle Repository
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 4/18/12 08:12 , Neil Bartlett wrote:
> I assume you're talking about the new Resolver and Repository specifications that are in the OSGi Enterprise R5 release? Because "OBR" is properly the name for the Felix implementation, which has been available and released for several years.
>
> An early draft release of the Enterprise R5 spec was made publicly available in March and can be downloaded now from the OSGi site. The official final release of these specs will be some time later, depending on votes and lawyers etc, however the technical content is very unlikely to change.
>
> I believe that the Felix org.apache.felix.bundlerepository implementation will NOT be updated to comply with the new R5 specs. Richard is working on the RI for the R5 spec within Felix but it is new code, based on the resolver in the core Felix framework.
I would like to see the Felix OBR implementation evolve to use the new
R5 resolver and repository specs, for sure.
Per-Erik, your confusion is likely due to the fact that the scope of
RFC-112 has changed over the course of its lifetime. Originally, it was
an API that was the precise basis for the Felix OBR implementation. Over
time, some holes were discovered in the API and Felix OBR evolved into
having its own API and well as supporting the original RFC-112.
During the spec process for RFC-112, it became clear that the scope was
too big (and there were too many bike shed issues) to complete it in a
reasonable amount of time, so the scope was pared back (even then it
still took a long time to complete). So, originally, RFC-112 dealt with
repositories, resolving, and deployment/provisioning, but now it only
deals with repositories and resolving. Further, there is no direct
relationship between the repositories and resolving.
In short, it became more low-level and only provides some of the
building blocks necessary to implement something like Felix OBR. So,
yes, I'd like to see Felix OBR built on top of these new building
blocks, but in the end it will still require that you tie yourself to a
specific implementation to get the full features of the current Felix OBR.
-> richard
>
> Regards
> Neil
>
>
> On Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 13:01, Per-Erik Svensson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there any timeframe on the release of OBR (the api, not the felix
>> implementation). I know this might not be the right place to ask but... I
>> figured that people like Richard, Peter or Neil would be able to answer and
>> I know they subscribe. :)
>>
>> The reason I ask is because I'm thinking of using the Felix implementation
>> of the API (org.apache.felix.bundlerepository) but before commiting to this
>> I would like to know if that implementation is supposed to be fully
>> compliant with the spec and if the spec will ever get released.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Per-Erik Svensson
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Bundle Repository
Posted by Neil Bartlett <nj...@gmail.com>.
I assume you're talking about the new Resolver and Repository specifications that are in the OSGi Enterprise R5 release? Because "OBR" is properly the name for the Felix implementation, which has been available and released for several years.
An early draft release of the Enterprise R5 spec was made publicly available in March and can be downloaded now from the OSGi site. The official final release of these specs will be some time later, depending on votes and lawyers etc, however the technical content is very unlikely to change.
I believe that the Felix org.apache.felix.bundlerepository implementation will NOT be updated to comply with the new R5 specs. Richard is working on the RI for the R5 spec within Felix but it is new code, based on the resolver in the core Felix framework.
Regards
Neil
On Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 13:01, Per-Erik Svensson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any timeframe on the release of OBR (the api, not the felix
> implementation). I know this might not be the right place to ask but... I
> figured that people like Richard, Peter or Neil would be able to answer and
> I know they subscribe. :)
>
> The reason I ask is because I'm thinking of using the Felix implementation
> of the API (org.apache.felix.bundlerepository) but before commiting to this
> I would like to know if that implementation is supposed to be fully
> compliant with the spec and if the spec will ever get released.
>
> Best regards,
> Per-Erik Svensson
>
>
Re: Bundle Repository
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
Hi Per-Erik,
The actual OSGi Enterprise R5 spec and API jars will be made available
when the OSGi member vote has concluded (some time in June) but for
the moment you can get them the specs from the Early Access release
here: http://www.osgi.org/News/20120326
The API's haven't changed between this draft and the actual spec that
is currently being voted on.
Best regards,
David
On 18 April 2012 13:01, Per-Erik Svensson <pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any timeframe on the release of OBR (the api, not the felix
> implementation). I know this might not be the right place to ask but... I
> figured that people like Richard, Peter or Neil would be able to answer and
> I know they subscribe. :)
>
> The reason I ask is because I'm thinking of using the Felix implementation
> of the API (org.apache.felix.bundlerepository) but before commiting to this
> I would like to know if that implementation is supposed to be fully
> compliant with the spec and if the spec will ever get released.
>
> Best regards,
> Per-Erik Svensson
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org