|Re: [equinox-dev] Support for RFC 119|
Scott Lewis wrote:
> H Tom,
> Thanks for the responses. Follow up inline below.
> > For now you can just throw a ServiceException of UNKNOWN or if you
> > want you could just use your own value for the type until we sort this
> > out.
> Ok, is this something I/we can track or is it OSGi members only?
I suggest you open a bug against Equinox to track this. I will report
back to that bug once the OSGi issue has been resolved.
> > The API contained in the packages above define several new constants.
> > Are these the ones you are referring to?
> I'll take a look. I haven't seen the cmpn code before so if they are
> *not* there I'll bring it up again here.
Go ahead and open bugs against Equinox if you find issues in the cmpn code.
> > I look forward to working with you from an Equinox perspective to
> > get this work started.
> Thanks much. One question: If we/ECF is going to have or create the
> bundle that exports the distribution provider and discovery interfaces
> from the r4.2 cmpn...should this bundle be in the equinox namespace (and
> if so what?) or should it be in the ecf namespace (i.e. in
> org.eclipse.ecf core bundle or some such)?
My preference is the package is exported (and imported to allow for
substitutability) by the bundle implementing RFC 119. I don't think
it should be exported by the ecf core bundle unless that is the
bundle that is actually going to implement RFC 119.
One of the Equinox missions is to be the place where OSGi implementations
are done within Eclipse. We need to decide if that means it is the only
place at eclipse where this is done. If so then the namespace would become
something like org.eclipse.equinox.distributed (seems like an awfully
general name though).
The other thing to consider is that the Enterprise specification within
OSGi has a later schedule than the core specification. Currently for
Galileo Equinox is only implementing specifications coming out of the
Core Platform Expert Group (CPEG) which has a release schedule that
aligns nicely with the Galileo release schedule.
We may need to consider incubating this effort (RFC 119 implementation)
for the Galileo release and releasing a graduated version in a later
release. Potentially we could graduate in a point release of
Galileo. Another option is to make the OSGi API provisional (this
means marking the exports as x-internal) until the Enterprise
Export Group finalizes the specification.
> We can work this out 1-1 if you prefer Tom...let me know if you would
> rather I contact you or equinox dev team directly to settle these questions.
> Thanks again,