[forge-dev] Forge 2.0 and OSGi

[Lincoln Baxter, III]

4. Would the current DependencyResolver abstraction work for that?
https://github.com/forge/core/blob/master/shell-api/src/main/java/org/jboss/forge/project/dependencies/DependencyResolver.java

~Lincoln

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Paul Bakker <paul.bakker.nl at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Lincoln,
>
> Comments in line...
>
>
> On Oct 15, 2012, at 18:19 , "Lincoln Baxter, III" <lincolnbaxter at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thank you all for this discussion - I have just now gotten caught up. Just
> to be clear, I am not thrilled about the idea of requiring a special
> tool-suite to develop on Forge itself, but I would be willing to put up
> with it if using OSGi allows us to achieve our goals, which are (top 3):
>
> 1. Modularity and ClassLoader Isolation
>
> Check (plus dynamic services will get us a lot further than JBM)
>
> 2. Plugin/Facet services which can be depended upon by other
> plugins/facets (essentially enabling re-use of work and exponential
> progress between plugins.)
>
> Check
>
> 3. A *standard* *and simple* Maven / CDI development model for plugin
> authors (no Felix)
>
> Check and Check, but...
> Either Maven or BndTools (or whatever) will work for plugin authors, as
> long as it produces an OSGi bundle (which Maven does).
> CDI, could be done, not sure if we should... CDI-OSGi integration is now
> in the specification process (I'm in the EG), but it might be a little
> early to start building on that. I would propose building on the service
> registry, so that any dependency injection (including weld-osgi) will work.
> Plugin developers don't really have to know about it, it's more of an
> architectural choice.
>
> 4. Modules distributable and dependencies resolvable via normal maven
> repositories (NOT with p2)
>
> Check,  although I would want to make the model more general. Let's deal
> with jar files in general, which CAN be resolved by Maven. Having Maven as
> one of the options instead of the only option will also move us closer to
> multi build system support. An abstraction on top of the repository concept
> would be a start. This is also done by BndTools, which has support for
> several kind of repositories (including Maven).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> If these things are possible with OSGi and a little bit of elbow grease,
> which it sounds like they are, then I think we should seriously consider
> this for Forge 2.0.
>
> ~Lincoln
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen <
> max.andersen at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> > Max, I hope you are kidding about going to p2 and tycho? :-)
>>
>> just as much as I'm hoping you are kidding about osgi ? :)
>>
>> /max
>>
>> >
>> > Paul, bnd is fine until all your dependencies have correct manifests.
>> What happens if one of the jars that we depend on does not have the 'Export
>> packages' entry? We cannot use this jar inside an OSGi environment, I think.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Ivan
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen <
>> max.andersen at redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 26 Sep 2012, at 14:53, Ivan St. Ivanov <ivan.st.ivanov at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Max,
>> > >
>> > > About your "server" question in the last sentence. If you refer to my
>> post, I was trying to make an analogy:
>> > >
>> > > server <-> applications == Forge core <-> Forge plugins
>> > >
>> > > Please, let us not go to p2, tycho and Equinox? :-)
>> >
>> > why not ? tons of plugin devs could learn from a proper setup tool :)
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > forge-dev mailing list
>> > forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > forge-dev mailing list
>> > forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> forge-dev mailing list
>> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lincoln Baxter, III
> http://ocpsoft.org
> "Simpler is better."
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>
>


-- 
Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.org
"Simpler is better."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/forge-dev/attachments/20121015/09c48e66/attachment-0001.html