[news.eclipse.technology.ecomm] Re: questions on the proposal

["Jeff McAffer" <jeff_mcaffer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Scott Lewis" <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:414F0297.4060201@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> From the brief comments in the proposal I suspect that your security work 
>> and that going on in Equinox will be complementary rather than 
>> conflicting. At least to date the Equinox efforts have been looking more 
>> at secure Java code (e.g., using Java 2 Security) rather than things like 
>> authentication, roles, etc.
>
> Good.   How do we best get connected with what is happening in Equinox WRT 
> security discussions, etc?

This work is really just spinning up.  I suspect if you watch the 
equinox-dev mailing list and/or news group you will see when stuff starts 
happening.

>> In general Foundation is pretty powerful.  And certainly for 
>> core/protocol needs it should be sufficient.  If you are in Eclipse land 
>> then AWT and Swing are not needed etc.  This of course does not stop 
>> people from using more in their applications but states that the 
>> middleware (i.e., the Ecomm code) does not force them to.
>
> Yes.  We will take a close look at Foundation right away.  I've got the 
> OSGI references, but are there others that would be good to look at 
> associated with Equinox?

OSGi's minimum execution environment is basically Gateway Plus.  This is 
much smaller than Foundation.  There are hints that OSGi's EE will be 
expanded a bit to include Collections etc to make it a bit more attractive. 
It may turn out to be sufficient for lots of work.  Equinox did not make any 
particular specification about execution environments.  Rather we looked to 
OSGi for their EE and the Eclipse parts were 1.4 based.  Within the current 
Eclipse RCP code base there is a move to something like Foundation.  We've 
just started looking at this.

Jeff