[modularity] OSGi or ? (was Re: half-baked idea? j2me)

["Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>]

On Nov 3, 2005, at 10:30 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> This is one of the "hot topic" on the GNU Classpath mailinglist.  
> How do
> we define "bundles" so people can more easily mix and match precisely
> those core library parts they want. See the discussions on
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/classpath/ if you are not yet
> subscribed. Maybe we could use something like OSGi bundles for  
> this. But
> the core libraries are pretty interwoven so there is a lot of  
> dicsussion
> what the right approach is.

What other approaches have you been considering?

geir


-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org

Re: [modularity] OSGi or ? (was Re: half-baked idea? j2me)

[Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>]

Tim Ellison wrote:
> I understand that the topic relates to the mechanics of achieving the
> componentization rather than the content of the components, but I
> proposed a componentization split for the J2SE libraries a while ago [1]
> and the final version ended up on the Harmony wiki [2].  That was done
> only with J2SE in mind, by trying to define the large 'functional units'
> of the class library code.  (I feel like I keep recycling old
> messages... so apologies for the repetition.)

I've had something like that in place for Kaffe for a while during a few
years, but I found the manual updating of component sets during the rush
of development on GNU Classpath to be, ugh, somewhat boring work, and
settled for for an approach where the list of classes to be compiled can
be pruned down, or left to the compiler to pull in the dependencies.

I am wondering if the osgi toolkits support some more automated ways of
partitioning libraries into separate, coupled artefacts. I've heard on
the classpath list, that such tools exist[1], but it seems that I've my
 google skills are not good enough to locate them :)

cheers,
dalibor topic

[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/classpath/2005-10/msg00180.html

Re: [modularity] OSGi or ? (was Re: half-baked idea? j2me)

[Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>]

I understand that the topic relates to the mechanics of achieving the
componentization rather than the content of the components, but I
proposed a componentization split for the J2SE libraries a while ago [1]
and the final version ended up on the Harmony wiki [2].  That was done
only with J2SE in mind, by trying to define the large 'functional units'
of the class library code.  (I feel like I keep recycling old
messages... so apologies for the repetition.)

I think it would be quite a different story if the goal was to support
ME configurations, where there are (necessarily) limited capabilities as
well as limited sets of types.  For example, you would like to be able
to define 'serialization' as a capability that j.u.Hashtable has in SE,
but not in CLDC.  That would require a different form of modularity to
the definition that j.u.HashMap is defined in SE but not CLDC.

Regards,
Tim

[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200507.mbox/browser
[2] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/ClassLibrary


Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Geir,
> 
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 10:54 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> 
>>On Nov 3, 2005, at 10:30 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>
>>>This is one of the "hot topic" on the GNU Classpath mailinglist.  
>>>How do we define "bundles" so people can more easily mix and match precisely
>>>those core library parts they want. See the discussions on
>>>http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/classpath/ if you are not yet
>>>subscribed. Maybe we could use something like OSGi bundles for  
>>>this. But the core libraries are pretty interwoven so there is a lot of  
>>>dicsussion what the right approach is.
>>
>>What other approaches have you been considering?
> 
> 
> Basically what people do now is solve it for their own platform
> separately. You can see examples of that for gcj which is of course
> ported to losts of different (small) devices. Best is to follow the
> discussion on the mailinglist, the last thread about this was stated by
> Peter Kriens (Using OSG for Classpath):
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mark
> 

-- 

Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.

Re: [modularity] OSGi or ? (was Re: half-baked idea? j2me)

[Mark Wielaard <ma...@klomp.org>]

Hi Geir,

On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 10:54 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2005, at 10:30 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > This is one of the "hot topic" on the GNU Classpath mailinglist.  
> > How do we define "bundles" so people can more easily mix and match precisely
> > those core library parts they want. See the discussions on
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/classpath/ if you are not yet
> > subscribed. Maybe we could use something like OSGi bundles for  
> > this. But the core libraries are pretty interwoven so there is a lot of  
> > dicsussion what the right approach is.
> 
> What other approaches have you been considering?

Basically what people do now is solve it for their own platform
separately. You can see examples of that for gcj which is of course
ported to losts of different (small) devices. Best is to follow the
discussion on the mailinglist, the last thread about this was stated by
Peter Kriens (Using OSG for Classpath):
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath

Cheers,

Mark

-- 
Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html

Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/