Bill Shannon wrote:
> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> In such a future with VM support, I would say yes. This is somewhat
>> ugly, but not much can be done about it. What you really want to have
>> happen is that the service provider publishes their own services
>> using a common Factory interface (in OSGi this could be published
>> into the service registry), so that no one would ever need to know
>> their implementation class, but at least if it can be limited to the
>> ServiceLoader, that is better than nothing.
>
> An advantage of ServiceLoader is that the publishing has *zero* cost.
> You pay nothing until you need to use something that's been published.
>
> My limited understanding of OSGi is that I would need to have a bundle
> activator that ran code that created an instance and registered that
> instance "somewhere", even if no one ever used the instance.
This is basically true, but there are potential patterns and approaches
for dealing with this too...one of which, the extender pattern, is what
you guys might already be employing, if I understand correctly...
-> richard
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>