Re: [cf-dev] OSGi support for Scandium, Elements-Connector

["Kovatsch Matthias" <kovatsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Okay, I see. My experience with OSGi is very limited, thus I trust your opinion here. Despite the initial mail, the element-connector bundle is off the table, I guess, since it is always required.

For Scandium, it depends on the use cases you saw so far. If you often set up Californium without Scandium, and hence Scandium is rather optional, it truly makes sense to not have it as static dependency. With Scandium having its own OSGi manifest, it could also be used stand-alone (i.e., without Californium, for instance for WebRTC), which was the idea in the first place having a separate project. Since the pull request was already merged and it makes sense to me, I would keep it as it is now with Scandium in its own OSGi bundle. Less work :)

The only downside is that users need to be aware of two bundles and add both. If someday it turns out that virtually nobody uses californium-osgi without scandium, we can change to an all-in-one californium-osgi bundle...

Thanks
Matthias

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Hudalla Kai
> Sent: Dienstag, 14. Oktober 2014 20:21
> To: Californium (Cf) developer discussions
> Subject: Re: [cf-dev] OSGi support for Scandium, Elements-Connector
> 
> Hmmm, that's certainly another option. So far we have been doing this for
> element-connector. But you are right, we could also use this approach for
> the scandium packages. However, this would mean that californium-osgi
> would _always_ include scandium and, in particular, it would also mean that
> the plain californium.jar behaves differently from californium-osgi.jar in that
> it requires element-connector and (optionally) the scandium.jar to work. But
> this, on the other hand, could actually be the reason why we would have a
> separate californium-osgi sub-module in the first place... because it is _not_
> the same as californium.jar :-) Any other thoughts? If not, I'd actually rather
> suggest I include Scnadium in the californium-osgi bundle as well ...
> 
> Regards,
> Kai