You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by Jeff McAffer <Je...@ca.ibm.com> on 2006/09/10 03:13:06 UTC
Re: [RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Felix Commons Initiative
I agree with the sentiments of both sides on this. Basically, this is a
necessary (and perhaps transient) evil. The Eclipse community is in the
process of creating the "Orbit" project
(http://eclipse.org/proposals/orbit/). The project will likely be created
next week. Orbit's main mission is to be a repository of bundles
containing third party libraries that are approved for use in Eclipse
projects. If these libs are already bundles, great, Orbit will just track
them for convenience and efficiency. If they are not bundles, Orbit
committers will create bundles and maintain them.
I mention Orbit here because it would be swell if we worked together to
come up with some bundling guidelines and best practices. Without seeking
to start the technical discussion here in this thread, I am thinking of
issues like
- bundle symbolic name conventions
- version numbering
- use of nested jars
- bundling libraries that are actually multiple jars (i.e., is the
rule one bundle per JAR)
- ...
Various Eclipse projects have been bundling libraries for some years now.
Some libs are bundled repeatedly by different projects and in divergent
ways. We are very much in need of a common understanding of the issues
and approaches within our community. Further, it would be goofy and
confusing for the OSGi community for us to bundle commons-logging
(whatever) one way and Felix to do it another.
Anyway, this message is more to raise awareness that there are others in
the same boat and on the same river.
Jeff
"Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>
08/08/2006 10:24 PM
Please respond to
felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
To
felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
cc
Subject
[RESULT] Re: [VOTE] Felix Commons Initiative
Time to call this vote on the Felix Commons initiative, here are the
results:
* +1 votes - Humberto Cervantes, Richard S. Hall, Karl Pauls,
Francesco Furfari, Manuel Santillan, Enrique Rodriguez, Marcel
Offermans, John E. Conlon, and Rob Walker.
* 0 votes - None.
* -1 votes - BJ Hargrave and Niclas Hedhman.
All binding votes were +1, so I guess the vote passes.
The main concern expressed by the -1 votes was that of the desire to
educate/encourage other communities to include OSGi headers in their JAR
files without us having to maintain separate bundle-ized versions.
However, this is not an either-or proposition, since the goal is to do
both...the mere act of creating separate bundle-ized versions educates
the original community that there is a need and desire. Additionally, it
may be the case that some communities will never support OSGi headers.
Ultimately, we all hope that the need for Felix Commons eventually
disappears in the future when every community adopts OSGi headers, but
until then we have a two-pronged approach: 1) enable sharing of
bundle-ized JARs to stop duplication of effort and 2) educate/encourage
communities to take over the bundle-izing of their own JARs.
-> richard
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> We need to vote on the Felix Commons initiative proposed by Enrique a
> little while back so that we can either start putting the idea into
> action or forget about it. To quote Enrique about the proposal:
>
> "As OSGi developers, many of us are faced with the need to 'bundlize'
> library jars; that is, to maintain 3rd party libraries re-packaged as
> OSGi bundles. Maintaining these jars results in a duplication of
> effort and it doesn't address the fact that many of us would like to
> see 3rd party library projects directly produce OSGi bundles.
> Therefore, we'd like to start an initiative at Felix to provide a
> 'commons' for bundlized jars."
>
> [ ] +1 Accept the proposal.
> [ ] 0 I don't care.
> [ ] -1 Reject the proposal.
>
>
>
Re[2]: Orbit
Posted by Peter Kriens <Pe...@aQute.biz>.
We are in the process of moving the bundles site so there are some
temporary issues. You can also access it on http://bundles.osgi.org/browse.php
Kind regards,
Peter Kriens
>> Query for "eclipse" at
>> http://bundles.osgi.org/Main/Repository
EH> Currently gives a 404.
EH> Eelco
--
Peter Kriens Tel +33467542167
9C, Avenue St. Drézéry AOL,Yahoo: pkriens
34160 Beaulieu, France ICQ 255570717
Skype pkriens Fax +1 8153772599
Re: Orbit
Posted by BJ Hargrave <ha...@us.ibm.com>.
Works fine for me. (Note: case is important here.)
BJ Hargrave
Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance
hargrave@us.ibm.com
Office: +1 407 849 9117 Mobile: +1 386 848 3788
"Eelco Hillenius" <ee...@gmail.com>
09/10/2006 01:20 PM
Please respond to
felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
To
felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: Orbit
> Query for "eclipse" at
> http://bundles.osgi.org/Main/Repository
Currently gives a 404.
Eelco
Re: Orbit
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
> Query for "eclipse" at
> http://bundles.osgi.org/Main/Repository
Currently gives a 404.
Eelco
Re: Best Practices on dependencies [was Re: Orbit]
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Erik Bengtson wrote:
> What is the best practice regarging dependencies? For instance, we have some
> bundles with dependency to commons-dbcp, commons-pool, etc.. Those are
> currently not in the repository, however I suppose they will eventually be.
> Meanwhile, should be have a dependency to
> org.apache.commons_pool/org.apache.commons_dbcp bundles or libraries?
>
> If the best practice is dependency to a bundle, what is the appropriate bundle
> ids / version?
>
> We do not distribute commons bundles/libraries and we would expect users to
> create their own until available in the repository.
>
This is sort of a loaded question, but in general I would say that your
dependencies should not be on a bundle at all, but on the packages that
your bundle needs. Then any number of bundles can satisfy the dependency.
> Aside question, can you give a light on the relationship between OBR and Maven 2
> repos and future?
Hard to say. OBR is specifically geared toward resolving OSGi
dependencies, thus it is better suited to dealing with package
dependencies, service dependencies, bundle dependencies, platform
dependencies, etc. Currently, the Maven dependency model is not
sufficient for OSGi dependency resolution. It might be nice if they
could be brought closer together and there has been some discussion in
that area, but we are all busy with other things.
At a minimum, we hope to get Maven generating OSGi bundle metadata,
which would simplify many things.
-> richard
Best Practices on dependencies [was Re: Orbit]
Posted by Erik Bengtson <er...@jpox.org>.
Hi,
What is the best practice regarging dependencies? For instance, we have some
bundles with dependency to commons-dbcp, commons-pool, etc.. Those are
currently not in the repository, however I suppose they will eventually be.
Meanwhile, should be have a dependency to
org.apache.commons_pool/org.apache.commons_dbcp bundles or libraries?
If the best practice is dependency to a bundle, what is the appropriate bundle
ids / version?
We do not distribute commons bundles/libraries and we would expect users to
create their own until available in the repository.
Aside question, can you give a light on the relationship between OBR and Maven 2
repos and future?
Thanks,
Erik Bengtson
Quoting Jeff McAffer <Je...@ca.ibm.com>:
> We already do. The entire Eclipse Callisto update site (several hundred
> bundles) is available through OBR. Query for "eclipse" at
> http://bundles.osgi.org/Main/Repository
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
> Didier Donsez <di...@imag.fr>
> 09/10/2006 08:13 AM
> Please respond to
> felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
>
>
> To
> felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
> cc
>
> Subject
> Orbit
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeff McAffer wrote:
>
> >... The Eclipse community is in the
> >process of creating the "Orbit" project
> >(http://eclipse.org/proposals/orbit/).
> >
> >... Without seeking
> >to start the technical discussion here in this thread, I am thinking of
> >issues like
> > - bundle symbolic name conventions
> > - version numbering
> > - use of nested jars
> > - bundling libraries that are actually multiple jars (i.e., is
> the
> >rule one bundle per JAR)
> > - ...
> >
> >
> Do you plan to have a representation compliant with the OBR v2 service ?
>
> Regards
>
> Didier
>
>
>
>
Re: Orbit
Posted by Jeff McAffer <Je...@ca.ibm.com>.
We already do. The entire Eclipse Callisto update site (several hundred
bundles) is available through OBR. Query for "eclipse" at
http://bundles.osgi.org/Main/Repository
Jeff
Didier Donsez <di...@imag.fr>
09/10/2006 08:13 AM
Please respond to
felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
To
felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
cc
Subject
Orbit
Jeff McAffer wrote:
>... The Eclipse community is in the
>process of creating the "Orbit" project
>(http://eclipse.org/proposals/orbit/).
>
>... Without seeking
>to start the technical discussion here in this thread, I am thinking of
>issues like
> - bundle symbolic name conventions
> - version numbering
> - use of nested jars
> - bundling libraries that are actually multiple jars (i.e., is
the
>rule one bundle per JAR)
> - ...
>
>
Do you plan to have a representation compliant with the OBR v2 service ?
Regards
Didier
Orbit
Posted by Didier Donsez <di...@imag.fr>.
Jeff McAffer wrote:
>... The Eclipse community is in the
>process of creating the "Orbit" project
>(http://eclipse.org/proposals/orbit/).
>
>... Without seeking
>to start the technical discussion here in this thread, I am thinking of
>issues like
> - bundle symbolic name conventions
> - version numbering
> - use of nested jars
> - bundling libraries that are actually multiple jars (i.e., is the
>rule one bundle per JAR)
> - ...
>
>
Do you plan to have a representation compliant with the OBR v2 service ?
Regards
Didier