Talk:OSGi

message: To be quite honest, after reading the introduction, I'm still wondering what OSGi is. It might be nice to cut down on the buzzwords and instead try to explain it in simpler/clearer terms.
:Additionally, the very first sentence is about OSGi Alliance, and not OSGi. The organization behind a specification is of course important, but I am very doubtful to it being that important. TERdON 13:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some definitions or additional articles may be required. What is a "service gateway" (IBM seems to use the term "web services gateway")? There is no other article on the subject. Nitwit005 18:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In essence it’s a fine example of the Inner-platform effect. They re-invented the wheel of small programs interacting with each other on a machine, where you can start/stop them, and they connect via ports that are bound to daemons. They just call the machine “JavaVM”, the daemons “modules”, the applications “bundles”, the ports “interfaces”, the coordinating OS “services registry”, etc. Typical enterprisey consultant FAIL. — 88.77.141.225 (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Judging by the comments here the introduction is clearly not achieving its aim.  I would be willing to work on a better version, but it would be good to get feedback (preferably from non-experts) so that I can see whether I'm actually doing any better. Reffik (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I would like to see a description of WHAT NEEDS that OSGi fills that was not previously available?  Specifically, a description of a sample installation with the functions that OSGi provides?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.133.216 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  explanation in simpler/clearer terms? 

message: OSGi is not a specific piece of software but rather a specification; like J2EE is a specification and WebLogic is an implementation.
In addition to the above comment, I'd like to add my concern for the fact that the infobox states Java as OSGi's operating system, which really doesn't sound right. First of all, OSGi is not bound to a specific operating system, and second, Java is not an operating system.  --77.5.230.107 (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, changed it to a standardref infobox. Dcxf (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why a software infobox? 

message: Can somebody explain to me what exactly is this OSGi?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sen4u nav (talk • contribs) 05:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Once you get past all the buzzwords, it seems to be about a standard for hot-pluggable modules, but I'm still not sure ;-) 201.235.249.18 (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

text: See my section below about the Inner-platform effect. The analogy clarifies it instantly. — 88.77.141.225 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  OSGi Definition 

message: The life-cycle says that all life-cycle operations are protected by security, but that text doesn't have a link to a description of the security methodology, and the toplevel article index doesn't have a section about security either.  Somebody please update this article to include material and/or link.  198.144.192.45 (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life-cycle needs security info/link 

message: They re-invented the wheel of small programs interacting with each other on a machine, using a OS to coordinate everything, where they run/quit, and they communicate via ports/sockets that are bound to daemons/services. They just call the machine “JavaVM”, the daemons “modules”, the applications “bundles”, the ports “interfaces”, the coordinating OS “services registry”, etc. Typical enterprisey consultant FAIL.  — 88.77.141.225 (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm new to OSGi, but I think you are mistaken for several reasons, one of them being that OSGi was designed to be suitable for machines without any such OS. Rp (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

text: I fail to see the point of this comment. I'm trying to be nice here. Architectures of completely dynamic software components aren't exactly new, aren't exactly pointless, and do need standardization, which OSGi provides. Their purpose is not to replace local function calls with RPC calls. Their purpose is to provide more flexible modularization than architectures which bind everything at compile time can provide. Take a look at some OSGi applications, e.g. Eclipse's plugin architecture, and tell us how they would be better done without OSGi. How would you reliably upgrade plugins pulled in from remote repositories? How can you upgrade an Eclipse plugin from a running Eclipse? Have you considered the scale and importance of the applications concerned? These are not student projects. Rp (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs section on how this is a good example of the [[Inner-platform effect]].