Hi Marcel... On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Marcel Offermans < marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl> wrote:
> Hello Mohammad, > > On May 31, 2012, at 20:36 , Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote: > > > But from what you said Frank, and what others proposed, I think you don't > > need that kind of modularity facilitated by OSGi or like technologies, I > > believe all what we need then is: > > > > 1- Good design > > +1 > > > 2- Good documentation about adding new modules/components > > +1 > > > 3- Managing modules/components dependencies using maven for example > > I actually don't agree that Maven is a good example of managing > dependencies, for a couple of reasons: > > 1) It manages dependencies between components (jar files with multiple, > often a lot of packages). This is often way too coarse grained, leading to > transitive dependencies that tend to "drag in the whole universe". > > 2) It does not allow you to separate API from implementation in an easy > way, meaning you end up depending on some specific implementation (of for > example logging) instead of only depending on the API. > > In stead, the OSGi model (regardless of whether you use OSGi or not) > shares code at the package level, so you can for example depend on just an > API package. Also, it allows you to distinguish between public/shared > packages and private ones. > > > 4- Good code organization to reflect this modularity on code level in the > > repo > > Agreed. In practice though, you will find that if you have no means of > enforcing modularity at runtime, it is hard to prevent people from doing > things that conflict with your nice and modular design. > > So if you're serious about creating a modular architecture, regardless of > the fact that you don't need the dynamic updating at runtime, or even the > versioning, I would still personally use the framework to simply enforce > the good design at runtime. Or, turn it around, what other technology would > you use? > > Another thing to consider: there are no short term benefits of creating > such a modular architecture, in fact it is extra work and it probably > introduces some additional complexity now. In the long term though, it > definitely has benefits, as modular applications tend to be more easy to > maintain a couple of years from now. > > Greetings, Marcel > Very well said and I totally agree with you cause I trust your experience with modularity and OSGi, and I didn't mean to compare what I explained with something like what OSGi can do I was just trying to propose a solution which does not need that learning curve which was the concern of some people on this thread But again I agree with you, and Allow me to formulate what has been said so far by all of us in these 2 points: 1- Either go the easy way, short learning curve if any, fast result, but bad on the long run 2- Go the hard way, (relatively) long learning curve, not so fast result, iterative work out, but excellent on the long run For me I would go the for the 2nd path, not necessarily at once, we can take it gradually, Marcel for I trust he can give more insight about the HOW-TO(s) of how to move to a modular system Thoughts/Feedbak/Kicks :D ? -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour ---- "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving" - Albert Einstein
