Reverted edits by 173.237.181.60 (Talk); changed back to last version by JaroslavTulach
| ←Older revision | Revision as of 10:49, 27 June 2012 | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
--[[User:JaroslavTulach|JaroslavTulach]] 11:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | --[[User:JaroslavTulach|JaroslavTulach]] 11:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
Comment provided by Sharron - via ArticleComments extension
| ←Older revision | Revision as of 04:50, 26 June 2012 | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
--[[User:JaroslavTulach|JaroslavTulach]] 11:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | --[[User:JaroslavTulach|JaroslavTulach]] 11:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | == Sharron said ... == | ||
| + | |||
| + | <div class='commentBlock'> | ||
| + | hi!,I love your writing very much! share we be in contact more about your article | ||
| + | on AOL? I need a specialist on this house to unravel my problem. | ||
| + | Maybe that is you! Having a look forward to peer you. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[http://forexnewsfeeds.com/wp-login.php Sharron] 06:50, 26 June 2012 (CEST) | ||
| + | </div> | ||
| ←Older revision | Revision as of 11:12, 12 October 2009 | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
--[http://alblue.blogspot.com Alex Blewitt] 12:11, 11 October 2009 (CEST) | --[http://alblue.blogspot.com Alex Blewitt] 12:11, 11 October 2009 (CEST) | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thanks for speaking up Alex. The title of my post was intentionally more radical than the content. All I wanted to point out is that [[Equinox]] (in contrast to [[Felix]]) is a ''meta'' framework. To turn it into actual [[OSGi]] framework you can apply various tweaking functions to it and thus obtain various [[OSGi]] frameworks. Obviously one of such tweaking functions can be identity (e.g. no change) yielding [[OSGi]] framework known as [[Equinox]]. But the ''meta'' capacity is something interesting and I wanted to point it out. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:JaroslavTulach|JaroslavTulach]] 11:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ←Older revision | Revision as of 10:58, 12 October 2009 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | <noinclude>Comments on | + | <noinclude>Comments on [[Equinox]] |
<comments /> | <comments /> | ||
----- __NOEDITSECTION__</noinclude> | ----- __NOEDITSECTION__</noinclude> | ||
| ←Older revision | Revision as of 10:58, 12 October 2009 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | <noinclude>Comments on [[Equinox]] | + | <noinclude>Comments on [[[[Equinox]]]] |
<comments /> | <comments /> | ||
----- __NOEDITSECTION__</noinclude> | ----- __NOEDITSECTION__</noinclude> | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
== Alex Blewitt said ... == | == Alex Blewitt said ... == | ||
<div class='commentBlock'> | <div class='commentBlock'> | ||
| - | Actually, most of this post is a fabrication. Equinox is an OSGi framework, as evidenced by the fact that it passes the OSGi TCK, without which it couldn't be called an OSGi framework. So the assertion that ' | + | Actually, most of this post is a fabrication. [[Equinox]] is an [[OSGi]] framework, as evidenced by the fact that it passes the [[OSGi]] TCK, without which it couldn't be called an [[OSGi]] framework. So the assertion that '[[Equinox]] is not an [[OSGi]] framework' is incorrect. |
| - | It does highlight something that people often get confused by; OSGi is not meant to be an exclusive specification of 'you can only use this'. It's supposed to be *modular*. And as such, you can add modules to bring your own functionality on top of any system; you're not 'limited' in some arbitrary way to only use those modules as specified in the OSGi spec. | + | It does highlight something that people often get confused by; [[OSGi]] is not meant to be an exclusive specification of 'you can only use this'. It's supposed to be *modular*. And as such, you can add modules to bring your own functionality on top of any system; you're not 'limited' in some arbitrary way to only use those modules as specified in the [[OSGi]] spec. |
| - | Equinox, by itself, is a standalone OSGi engine. The framework differs from Felix's implementation in that the console is bundled in the 'org.eclipse. | + | [[Equinox]], by itself, is a standalone [[OSGi]] engine. The framework differs from [[Felix]]'s implementation in that the console is bundled in the 'org.eclipse.[[OSGi]]' framework bundle; whereas in Felix it's a separate engine. |
| - | But services like the extension registry are provided in their own bundle as a separate OSGi bundle. Just because the extension registry isn't defined in the OSGi core spec doesn't mean it's not OSGi - it's just another layer on top, much like the reference impl for remote services is handled by using different underlying bundles (e.g. ECF or SOAP). | + | But services like the extension registry are provided in their own bundle as a separate [[OSGi]] bundle. Just because the extension registry isn't defined in the [[OSGi]] core spec doesn't mean it's not [[OSGi]] - it's just another layer on top, much like the reference impl for remote services is handled by using different underlying bundles (e.g. ECF or SOAP). |
| - | Lastly, OSGi isn't a 'constraining' system which means that you are locked into precisely one way of working. In fact, until 4.2, there wasn't even a standard set of properties to bring up a framework; they were all non-standard properties in that way. At least that's starting to normalise. | + | Lastly, [[OSGi]] isn't a 'constraining' system which means that you are locked into precisely one way of working. In fact, until 4.2, there wasn't even a standard set of properties to bring up a framework; they were all non-standard properties in that way. At least that's starting to normalise. |
--[http://alblue.blogspot.com Alex Blewitt] 12:11, 11 October 2009 (CEST) | --[http://alblue.blogspot.com Alex Blewitt] 12:11, 11 October 2009 (CEST) | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Comment provided by Alex Blewitt - via ArticleComments extension
| ←Older revision | Revision as of 10:11, 11 October 2009 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
--Netigso 17:56, 5 October 2009 (CEST) | --Netigso 17:56, 5 October 2009 (CEST) | ||
| + | </div> | ||
| + | == Alex Blewitt said ... == | ||
| + | |||
| + | <div class='commentBlock'> | ||
| + | Actually, most of this post is a fabrication. Equinox is an OSGi framework, as evidenced by the fact that it passes the OSGi TCK, without which it couldn't be called an OSGi framework. So the assertion that 'equinox is not an OSGi framework' is incorrect. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It does highlight something that people often get confused by; OSGi is not meant to be an exclusive specification of 'you can only use this'. It's supposed to be *modular*. And as such, you can add modules to bring your own functionality on top of any system; you're not 'limited' in some arbitrary way to only use those modules as specified in the OSGi spec. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Equinox, by itself, is a standalone OSGi engine. The framework differs from Felix's implementation in that the console is bundled in the 'org.eclipse.osgi' framework bundle; whereas in Felix it's a separate engine. | ||
| + | |||
| + | But services like the extension registry are provided in their own bundle as a separate OSGi bundle. Just because the extension registry isn't defined in the OSGi core spec doesn't mean it's not OSGi - it's just another layer on top, much like the reference impl for remote services is handled by using different underlying bundles (e.g. ECF or SOAP). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Lastly, OSGi isn't a 'constraining' system which means that you are locked into precisely one way of working. In fact, until 4.2, there wasn't even a standard set of properties to bring up a framework; they were all non-standard properties in that way. At least that's starting to normalise. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[http://alblue.blogspot.com Alex Blewitt] 12:11, 11 October 2009 (CEST) | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Comment provided by Netigso - via ArticleComments extension
New page