LOL. One of the first ‘memory tricks’ I had was that it looked like a butler
serving a tray. I.e. the publisher was ‘offering’ the service to the world.
Strange that it is still hard to remember :-)
Kind regards,
Peter Kriens
> On 29 Jun 2018, at 12:53, Fauth Dirk (AA-AS/EIS2-EU) via osgi-dev
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Another way to look at the picture and remind about the triangle direction
> would be to see it as a megaphone. The provider shouts out to the “world”
> that there is a new service available. J
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
>
> Dirk Fauth
>
> Automotive Service Solutions, ESI application (AA-AS/EIS2-EU)
> Robert Bosch GmbH | Postfach 11 29 | 73201 Plochingen | GERMANY |
> www.bosch.com <http://www.bosch.com/>
> Tel. +49 7153 666-1155 | [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
>
> Sitz: Stuttgart, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 14000;
> Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Franz Fehrenbach; Geschäftsführung: Dr. Volkmar
> Denner,
> Prof. Dr. Stefan Asenkerschbaumer, Dr. Rolf Bulander, Dr. Stefan Hartung, Dr.
> Markus Heyn, Dr. Dirk Hoheisel,
> Christoph Kübel, Uwe Raschke, Peter Tyroller
>
>
> Von: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> [mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>] Im Auftrag von Peter Kriens via
> osgi-dev
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2018 17:45
> An: Dirk Fauth <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Cc: OSGi Developer Mail List <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Betreff: Re: [osgi-dev] OSGi Specification Question
>
> I think this is the same confusion that exists for the UML interface symbol.
>
> Lots of problems that have a client-publisher relation have a hard time with
> a good symbol since the relation is symmetric but not really.
>
> Imho once you take a bit of time to see that the arrow points in the
> dependency direction you tend to never forget it.
>
> I’d love to change it for another symbol but never found a better one. UML
> interfaces are not services (and probably even more confusing) and I’ve never
> so far seen a symbol for micro-services, where I guess they have the same
> need for a symbol. Most symbols tend to draw something on the publisher.
>
> <image001.png>
> However, in OSGi that does not make sense since we have independent
> publisher. In OSGi, the service is its own entity. Nobody else but OSGi seem
> to make that distinction. We reified the service and the service object(s)
> because they are independent of the provider and the consumer. Our dependency
> versioning is based on the version of the API, NOT the provider nor the
> consymer. (At the time I tried to get the Semver people to understand that
> they should add support for the compatibility rule differences between
> providers and consumers and failed.)
>
> The service broker model in OSGi is very innovative but unfortunately badly
> understood since it is so outlandish. Ah well, story of my life.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Peter Kriens
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 28 Jun 2018, at 16:56, Dirk Fauth <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot for the answers. Then I updated my slides last year correctly
> after the feedback from Tim. I just didn't remember. :)
>
> The confusion seems to be quite big. I need to update my getting started with
> DS tutorial. And the incorrect picture is also posted on the Concierge
> website https://www.eclipse.org/concierge/
> <https://www.eclipse.org/concierge/>
>
>
>
> Peter Kriens via osgi-dev <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> schrieb am Do., 28. Juni 2018, 16:23:
> Not sure it is a good idea to repeat this picture for future confusion on a
> mailing list?
>
> Peter Kriens
>
>
>
> On 28 Jun 2018, at 16:10, Tim Ward via osgi-dev <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> I think it is this picture that causes the confusion:
>
> <enRoute1.png>
>
>
> In this picture the “register” action is between A and S. This appears to
> suggest that the service S is registered by bundle A. If that is the case
> then the pointy-end of the triangle needs to point at A. Similarly the “get”
> and “listen” actions are coming from bundle B, which would appear to make it
> the consumer of S. The consumer should have the fat end of the triangle.
>
> Note that almost all OSGi diagrams put the consumer on the left and the
> provider on the right.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 28 Jun 2018, at 15:04, Neil Bartlett via osgi-dev <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> The spec is correct, and either Tim misspoke or you misheard him.
>
> The service should look like a big arrow pointing from the consumer to the
> provider.
>
> Neil
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Fauth Dirk (AA-AS/EIS2-EU) via osgi-dev
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> maybe a stupid question, but I am preparing my slides for the Java Forum
> Stuttgart about Remote Services, and remembered that Tim told me that my
> diagrams are incorrect, as the triangle is directing into the wrong direction.
>
> The big end should be on the producer side, while the cone end points to the
> consumer bundle.
> https://enrouteclassic.github.io/doc/215-sos.html
> <https://enrouteclassic.github.io/doc/215-sos.html>
> https://jaxenter.de/osgi-enroute-1-0-hintergruende-architektur-best-practices-39709
>
> <https://jaxenter.de/osgi-enroute-1-0-hintergruende-architektur-best-practices-39709>
>
> The architecture picture in the Remote Services chapter show the triangles
> differently.
> https://osgi.org/specification/osgi.cmpn/7.0.0/service.remoteservices.html
> <https://osgi.org/specification/osgi.cmpn/7.0.0/service.remoteservices.html>
>
> Where is my misunderstanding? Is the picture incorrect, or does the picture
> show something different?
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
>
> Dirk Fauth
>
> Automotive Service Solutions, ESI application (AA-AS/EIS2-EU)
> Robert Bosch GmbH | Postfach 11 29 | 73201 Plochingen | GERMANY |
> www.bosch.com <http://www.bosch.com/>
> Tel. +49 7153 666-1155 | [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
>
> Sitz: Stuttgart, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 14000;
> Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Franz Fehrenbach; Geschäftsführung: Dr. Volkmar
> Denner,
> Prof. Dr. Stefan Asenkerschbaumer, Dr. Rolf Bulander, Dr. Stefan Hartung, Dr.
> Markus Heyn, Dr. Dirk Hoheisel,
> Christoph Kübel, Uwe Raschke, Peter Tyroller
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSGi Developer Mail List
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
> <https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSGi Developer Mail List
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
> <https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSGi Developer Mail List
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
> <https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSGi Developer Mail List
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
> <https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSGi Developer Mail List
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
> <https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev>
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
[email protected]
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
