> > Getting 2.0.1 out the door was a great step and now might be a good > > time to start discussing where we want geronimo to head next. Here > > are some ideas I've had or think are important. If I were to try to > > write actual sentences about all of this I'd probably never send the > > email so this is way too fragmentary but maybe can spark more > > discussion. I'm hoping everyone will chime in with their interests > > and viewpoints, this is just what I've been thinking about lately. > ... > > Core > > Better Spring application management > > Investigate OSGI and figure out how it is different from what we are > > doing, what it can do better, and what is missing from it. Figure > > out an integration strategy whether it be "run OSGI as an > > application" or "replace the kernel with OSGI" Don't break stuff if > > we start using OSGI more :-)
In my experience, it makes sense to go down the "replace the kernel with OSGi" route. Most projects start with the other approach but in the end realize that it is a lot more work without many of the benefits :-) > > Figure out what to do with our "config.ser" in modules/ > > configurations. At least get it into real xml, maybe using something > > like jaxb with schema/gbean. > > Great list Dave! I couldn't think of any functionality you left out in > the list that I could throw in. It's great you added OSGi as well. > I've always been thinking of OSGi-like kernel for Geronimo (and > convert Geronimo plugins to be based on the OSGi plugin concept), I'd love to see more Apache projects switch to OSGi. Geronimo would be perfect as a starting point because it integrates a lot of other projects (hence, might "convert" them along the way). > but to be honest I'd need a lot of support to get it done (mentor?). As I said previously on this list, I'd be willing to help. Alas, my time is limited as well but I can provide help and insides where necessary. > I'm not an OSGi expert, but it seems the issues we're having with > classloading could be easily sorted out with OSGi. Not having to deal with classloaders is one of the benefits of OSGi (not sure whether it would be easy :-). > I wish I could afford more time and energy to the project to make an OSGi > kernel > done, but am now fully aware of my time incapabilities and with no > other people interested in it I don't think I'll do any real > developments in this area. I could be of some help, but to lead > it...well...it'd be very challenging. I'd also appreciate to hear > Dain's view on how OSGi could affect Geronimo as he's one of the very > few who are not scared to make changes in the kernel as well as I seem > to recall he's been developing xbean-osgi module. Dain? > > Jacek > > -- > Jacek Laskowski > http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl At Apache Felix, we have developed a maven2 plugin that might be helpful in migrating to OSGi. Maybe that can be a starting point: http://felix.apache.org/site/maven-bundle-plugin-bnd.html Felix itself is very small (~300k) and can be easily embedded: http://felix.apache.org/site/launching-and-embedding-apache-felix.html regards, Karl -- Karl Pauls [EMAIL PROTECTED]
