Yesterday I and many members of my team took a trip up to Hammersmith to attend OSGi DevCon. Attached to the JAX London conference it is a day of talks and tutorials on the dynamic module system that is OSGi. This was the first time OSGi DevCon had been run in the UK so it was a great opportunity to head down and see what was being said. In addition Ian Robinson was going to spend 30 minutes talking about Apache Aries, an Apache incubator I am a committer on.
Looking back on the agenda I realise I did not actually attend that many of the OSGi talks. I bumped into some people I know from the OSGi UK User Forum and took the time to find out what they are doing.
I missed the keynote, which I hear was very good by Ted Neward. I had aimed to arrive for the first OSGi talk at 10:30 and arrived in time. Shaun Smith from Oracle gave an overview of the soon to be released OSGi JPA2 spec which I had been keeping an eye on, so I didn't learn anything new, but it was well presented with some slick slides.
I then went to Mike Keith's (also of Oracle) talk titled "OSGi and Java EE: Friends or Foes?" which I think was slightly misnamed. It was more of an OSGi for Java EE developers talk. It had a good introduction to OSGi and talked about how the OSGi Enterprise Expert Group are working on bringing Java EE standards to OSGi so they work nicely in an OSGi environment. Despite knowing what he presented it was done with a flare of humour that made it really enjoyable.
After lunch I sat in on a talk about the Eclipse API tooling. These are some extensions for the PDE tooling to detect when an incompatible change to the API are made. It all looks very interesting and I am hoping to take a look at the tools ant integration, but because it was built to support the Eclipse API and as a result is built around the Require-Bundle capability of OSGi, not Import/Export-Package capability. As a result the tooling is of limited (if any) value to an OSGi developer. This is a shame, but I am assured that they are working on the problem. They are also working on bringing this to normal Java projects in eclipse, but in my view they would be better off supporting Import/Export-Package first. Of course I was invited to contribute to the tooling, but that would be problematic.
While I was in a few sessions in the afternoon the subject material wasn't particularly interesting to me. It wasn't until the Tools panel that I got interested again. Improving the tools for OSGi development seems to be one of Peter Kriens pet projects. I happen to use both PDE + ant and maven + bnd in different environments and from my perspective the PDE + ant combination beats the maven + bnd combination hands down, but I appear to be in the minority (I am told that once I have been using maven for eight years I will love it as much as I love ant). I was a bit disappointed by the tooling panel. I was hoping for a little more discussion and idea sharing, but there was not much of that. Perhaps the most interesting part was when a member of the audience asked for some standard headers to encode information on where the source code repository is located, and where to raise issues when bugs are found. Since I am primarily a closed source developer it is not something I care too much about, although I do understand the problem. Peter Kriens' view is that the source should be in the OSGi bundle and that jar file size is no longer an issue. I disagree with this view very strongly. First off when you consider an application the size of eclipse adding the source into every bundle will increase the download size of eclipse significantly. While for an individual bundle it might not be an issue, for a whole application it gets to be significant. The second problem is one of contamination. Not all Open Source licenses are compatible and some can cause significant contamination issues, viewing or understanding the source could prevent or cause issues if you work on other projects. As a result I think having a URL in the bundle metadata is absolutely the right solution, once it is there any debug tools can use it for debug, but you can have a policy in the tools to prevent it.
The final two sessions were on what is coming in the OSGi Alliances enterprise spec and about Apache Aries and Eclipse Gemini. It is difficult for me to be objective on these talks because I've been so heavily involved in defining the enterprise spec, and am an Apache Aries committer.
In the end I had a very enjoyable day which was only let down by the late finish (I got home after 1am). Not all the talks were interesting, but they never are and being attached to JAX London meant that if a particular session didn't interest you there were others sessions you could attend.
Hmm, large projects like Eclipse already provide the source code in the download so I fail to see the practical difference. Having the source code in the JAR is just much more convenient. It is guaranteed to be the right version (non-trivial to make sure you really the version you're using), it is guaranteed to be complete, and I do not have to do complicated things when I suddenly want to step through a bundle, with source in the bundle, it is already there and Eclipse recognizes source code out of the box when it is in OSGI-OPT/src.
There is also the problem that a bundle might come from one or more non-trivial to build projects. Having it in the bundle is a lot easier.
Last but not least, it is trivial to strip source code from a bundle if you think it is a waste of space ...
At about 5cts a Gb I cannot really be too worried about the extra size of the source code in the bundle. If I need to choose, I'd probably get rid of the binary part :-)
Eclipse do, but not in the OSGi bundles, and not by default (you have to download the source distribution to get it), oh and they don't put it in OSGI-OPT/src either.
The dollar cost isn't the issue it is more the latency. It takes time to download 100Mb and adding the source in could increase it to 200Mb. This doubles the download time, not to mention the time required to scan the content of the jar at runtime. now it is double the size.
Even ignoring the latency issues there are still the legal issues involved in seeing the code under certain licenses.
I do seem to recall you advocating we just ship the source and compile on the fly, but I think it is reasonable to deliver binaries where we can because we do the work once ourselves, not force out users to do it all the time.
P.S. I did enjoy the conference, thanks for putting it together.
Post a Comment