OSGi Adoption Experience

The Mule team have blogged about their decision not to adopt OSGi. The decision seems reasonable: OSGi isn't a panacea and I guess the benefits didn't outweigh the costs in their case.

One of their number, Ross Mason, correctly identifies some of the costs of adopting OSGi. He would like OSGi to be almost completely invisible to the developer, leaving him or her free to define an application in terms of modules without dealing directly with manifests, bundles, and build systems. The somewhat messy details of developing and building modular applications with OSGi are partly what led SpringSource to donate the dm Server project to Eclipse as Virgo. The aim is to grow the user community and smooth out the wrinkles in the developer experience.

Adoption is going pretty well. Virgo recently shipped its first release. SAP are adopting Virgo in a strategic way. VMware products in development are using dm Server/Virgo to obtain the benefits of modular application code. Others are using dm Server/Virgo to host substantial applications in sectors including investment banking, networking, healthcare, online gaming, and academic research.

As we prepare to donate the Virgo tooling to Eclipse and collaborate in the OSGi Enterprise Tools project inside Eclipse with the likes of SAP, EclipseSource, and Eteration, I'm optimistic about improving the developer experience.

Dissenting voices such as those of the Mule team are a good reality check. Efforts, such as Mule, to try to find intermediate modularity solutions with some of the benefits of OSGi but with smaller costs should also help by providing data points for comparison with full blown OSGi adoption.

I'm looking forward to more experience reports from application development groups that have adopted OSGi or technologies like Mule so others can make a more informed decision about the technology to adopt. Certainly OSGi users are starting to publish their experience. Perhaps users of Mule will soon do the same.