You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by Stefano Lenzi <ki...@interfree.it> on 2007/08/28 01:25:05 UTC
OBR Extension Proposal
Hi All,
I'd like to know your opinion and interest in the following improvement
for the OBR software.
I think that we'll be nice to have OBR use RepositoryService(or
ResourceLocator) instead of a fixed list of URL for collecting all the
information of all the sources so that it will be easy to extend OBR in
order to use:
- Maven2 repository as Bundle repository
- sourceforge.net, berlios.de, etc. download section area as Bundle
repository
- Repository with authentication requirement
What do you think?
Ciao,
Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
Re: OBR Extension Proposal
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Stefano Lenzi wrote:
> Marcel Offermans wrote:
>> First of all, the OBR is currently being defined and considered as a
>> standard within OSGi as RFC-112, as can be seen from Peter Kriens'
>> blog post here:
>>
>> http://www.osgi.org/blog/2007/07/osgi-bundle-repository-indexer-open.html
>>
>>
>> I agree that having some way to create a more dynamic list of
>> resources would be nice, but I think we should either:
>>
>> a) work with OSGi to make it part of RFC-112, as they are asking for
>> feedback;
>
> Do you know how can we send feedback?
At a minimum, to osgi-dev...
>> b) design it in such a way that we don't need to extend OBR.
>
> What is the problem to extend OBR if we keep legacy compatibility?
Bloat is one reason.
If the same thing can already be accomplished externally, then it may
not be necessary to add support for it internally unless there is reason
to believe that everyone will need that feature.
Having said that, I don't recall the original thinking if we were going
to have the RepositoryAdmin automatically use any Repository instances
it found in the service registry. Is that something like you are talking
about with respect to the "fixed URL list" ?
-> richard
>
>>
>> OBR accepts a fixed list of URL's, that is true, but we could have
>> one URL that points to a servlet that dynamically generates the
>> contents of the repository.xml (and you could use the bundle
>> repository indexer mentioned in the blog to implement that).
>
> That could be a solution but I was thinking to the definition of
> ad-hoc architecture...
>
>>
>> On Aug 28, 2007, at 9:27 , Guillaume Sauthier wrote:
>>
>>> Yep
>>> That would be nice not to have that fixed URL list.
>>>
>>> Currently, we always have the oscar bundle repository URL. This
>>> leads to timeout when you launch Felix and the OBR behind a proxy...
>>>
>>> --Guillaume
>>>
>>> Stefano Lenzi wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to know your opinion and interest in the following
>>>> improvement for the OBR software.
>>>>
>>>> I think that we'll be nice to have OBR use RepositoryService(or
>>>> ResourceLocator) instead of a fixed list of URL for collecting all
>>>> the information of all the sources so that it will be easy to
>>>> extend OBR in order to use:
>>>> - Maven2 repository as Bundle repository
>>>> - sourceforge.net, berlios.de, etc. download section area as
>>>> Bundle repository
>>>> - Repository with authentication requirement
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Ciao,
>>>> Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: OBR Extension Proposal
Posted by Stefano Lenzi <ki...@interfree.it>.
Marcel Offermans wrote:
> First of all, the OBR is currently being defined and considered as a
> standard within OSGi as RFC-112, as can be seen from Peter Kriens' blog
> post here:
>
> http://www.osgi.org/blog/2007/07/osgi-bundle-repository-indexer-open.html
>
> I agree that having some way to create a more dynamic list of resources
> would be nice, but I think we should either:
>
> a) work with OSGi to make it part of RFC-112, as they are asking for
> feedback;
Do you know how can we send feedback?
> b) design it in such a way that we don't need to extend OBR.
What is the problem to extend OBR if we keep legacy compatibility?
>
> OBR accepts a fixed list of URL's, that is true, but we could have one
> URL that points to a servlet that dynamically generates the contents of
> the repository.xml (and you could use the bundle repository indexer
> mentioned in the blog to implement that).
That could be a solution but I was thinking to the definition of ad-hoc
architecture...
>
> On Aug 28, 2007, at 9:27 , Guillaume Sauthier wrote:
>
>> Yep
>> That would be nice not to have that fixed URL list.
>>
>> Currently, we always have the oscar bundle repository URL. This leads
>> to timeout when you launch Felix and the OBR behind a proxy...
>>
>> --Guillaume
>>
>> Stefano Lenzi wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I'd like to know your opinion and interest in the following
>>> improvement for the OBR software.
>>>
>>> I think that we'll be nice to have OBR use RepositoryService(or
>>> ResourceLocator) instead of a fixed list of URL for collecting all
>>> the information of all the sources so that it will be easy to extend
>>> OBR in order to use:
>>> - Maven2 repository as Bundle repository
>>> - sourceforge.net, berlios.de, etc. download section area as Bundle
>>> repository
>>> - Repository with authentication requirement
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Ciao,
>>> Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: OBR Extension Proposal
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>.
First of all, the OBR is currently being defined and considered as a
standard within OSGi as RFC-112, as can be seen from Peter Kriens'
blog post here:
http://www.osgi.org/blog/2007/07/osgi-bundle-repository-indexer-
open.html
I agree that having some way to create a more dynamic list of
resources would be nice, but I think we should either:
a) work with OSGi to make it part of RFC-112, as they are asking for
feedback;
b) design it in such a way that we don't need to extend OBR.
OBR accepts a fixed list of URL's, that is true, but we could have
one URL that points to a servlet that dynamically generates the
contents of the repository.xml (and you could use the bundle
repository indexer mentioned in the blog to implement that).
On Aug 28, 2007, at 9:27 , Guillaume Sauthier wrote:
> Yep
> That would be nice not to have that fixed URL list.
>
> Currently, we always have the oscar bundle repository URL. This
> leads to timeout when you launch Felix and the OBR behind a proxy...
>
> --Guillaume
>
> Stefano Lenzi wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I'd like to know your opinion and interest in the following
>> improvement for the OBR software.
>>
>> I think that we'll be nice to have OBR use RepositoryService(or
>> ResourceLocator) instead of a fixed list of URL for collecting all
>> the information of all the sources so that it will be easy to
>> extend OBR in order to use:
>> - Maven2 repository as Bundle repository
>> - sourceforge.net, berlios.de, etc. download section area as
>> Bundle repository
>> - Repository with authentication requirement
>>
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
>>
>
Re: OBR Extension Proposal
Posted by Guillaume Sauthier <Gu...@objectweb.org>.
Yep
That would be nice not to have that fixed URL list.
Currently, we always have the oscar bundle repository URL. This leads to
timeout when you launch Felix and the OBR behind a proxy...
--Guillaume
Stefano Lenzi wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to know your opinion and interest in the following
> improvement for the OBR software.
>
> I think that we'll be nice to have OBR use RepositoryService(or
> ResourceLocator) instead of a fixed list of URL for collecting all the
> information of all the sources so that it will be easy to extend OBR
> in order to use:
> - Maven2 repository as Bundle repository
> - sourceforge.net, berlios.de, etc. download section area as Bundle
> repository
> - Repository with authentication requirement
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> Ciao,
> Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
>
Re: OBR Extension Proposal
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Stefano Lenzi wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to know your opinion and interest in the following improvement
> for the OBR software.
>
> I think that we'll be nice to have OBR use RepositoryService(or
> ResourceLocator) instead of a fixed list of URL for collecting all the
> information of all the sources so that it will be easy to extend OBR in
> order to use:
> - Maven2 repository as Bundle repository
I was thinking about adding support for a maven2 repository as well.
This would for example allow us to publish our commons wrappers into the
maven2 repository and every obr can pull the stuff from there, so we
don't have to run our own obr. But that's just one use case.
Carsten
> - sourceforge.net, berlios.de, etc. download section area as Bundle
> repository
> - Repository with authentication requirement
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> Ciao,
> Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
>
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: OBR Extension Proposal
Posted by Stefano Lenzi <ki...@interfree.it>.
Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> On 28/08/07, Stefano Lenzi <ki...@interfree.it> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I'd like to know your opinion and interest in the following improvement
>> for the OBR software.
>>
>> I think that we'll be nice to have OBR use RepositoryService(or
>> ResourceLocator) instead of a fixed list of URL for collecting all the
>> information of all the sources so that it will be easy to extend OBR in
>
>
> certainly sounds better than a fixed URL list - btw, are those existing
> repository APIs or "to-be-defined" ?
As far as know the API does not exist at the moment, but we can create
them starting from the API used by the OBR bundle.
Also I think that we should create a set of SPI which, at least, do not
require change in the OBR bundle so big to break API interface exported
by OBR
Ciao,
Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
Re: OBR Extension Proposal
Posted by Stuart McCulloch <st...@jayway.net>.
On 28/08/07, Stefano Lenzi <ki...@interfree.it> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to know your opinion and interest in the following improvement
> for the OBR software.
>
> I think that we'll be nice to have OBR use RepositoryService(or
> ResourceLocator) instead of a fixed list of URL for collecting all the
> information of all the sources so that it will be easy to extend OBR in
certainly sounds better than a fixed URL list - btw, are those existing
repository APIs or "to-be-defined" ?
order to use:
> - Maven2 repository as Bundle repository
> - sourceforge.net, berlios.de, etc. download section area as Bundle
> repository
> - Repository with authentication requirement
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> Ciao,
> Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
>
--
Cheers, Stuart