[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [virgo-dev] Virgo F2F agenda items [was: Re: Virgo F2F]
- From: "Iliev, Hristo" <hristo.iliev@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:58:50 +0100
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Thread-index: AcuNSvTEXa4JeFnXSsyVWczRTnRIyQADAk4w
- Thread-topic: [virgo-dev] Virgo F2F agenda items [was: Re: Virgo F2F]
Glyn is right - we want to discuss the isolation that OSGi and RFC 138 provide in single JVM.
We also want to discuss the application scenarios we have (both positive and negative) from the isolation point of view. It would be interesting to see what are the benefits or even drawbacks.
From: virgo-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:virgo-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Glyn Normington
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 11:19 AM
To: Virgo Project
Subject: Re: [virgo-dev] Virgo F2F agenda items [was: Re: Virgo F2F]
No, it's about isolating apps from other apps (and apps from the kernel) using OSGi facilities, such as those provided by RFC 138, in a single JVM. We'll go into this a lot more next week.
(An aside: JSR 121 never really took off. If you need failure isolation, for example, you have to run separate processes. You can then optimise a JVM to share class definitions across processes and you don't need JSR 121 API support.)
On 25 Nov 2010, at 17:40, Florian Waibel wrote:
> Very interesting topics indeed.
>>> 3. Nested frameworks
>>> Regions and RFC 138
>>> Improved application isolation
> Is this about using JSR 121 Application Isolation API Specification?
>  http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/final/jsr121/index.html
> virgo-dev mailing list
virgo-dev mailing list