Hi, BundleDelegatingClassLoader was dropped a while back in favour of using AriesFrameworkUtil#getClassLoader(Bundle) and AriesFrameworkUtil#getClassLoaderForced(Bundle). These get the actual bundle classloader which makes them faster and less error prone.
Clearly the CXF integration is quite involved - what exactly is it that CXF needs the Recipes for? This is exactly the sort of stuff that would be useful to us in properly defining the Aries Blueprint API. It may be that there are ways of implementing the function without using blueprint's internals, and in a way that works across 0.3 and 0.4. Another possibility is that your use-case indicates a missing piece of API for blueprint that we should be adding. I'm really not keen to start exporting the internal recipe and di packages again, in my view they are implementation details that should never have been exported in the first place. Regards Tim Ward ------------------- Apache Aries PMC member & Enterprise OSGi advocate Enterprise OSGi in Action (http://www.manning.com/cummins) ------------------- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: More issues with blueprint..... > Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:24:22 -0500 > > > As you know, I'm trying to get CXF to work with the latest blueprint stuff. > This is not going easily.... More issues: > > 1) BundleDelegatingClassloader removed - not a huge issue. I can copy it > into > CXF from the old tag. However, this is a backwords incompatible issue. I > would recommend putting it back in and marking it @deprecated. > > 2) blueprint.di, blueprint.container, blueprint.reflect not exported. > reflect isn't a big deal. CXF is just calling a single method on > MetatdataUtil for which I can easily copy the code over. The other two are > much bigger issues. CXF needs access to the BeanRecipe from container and > Recipe and ExecutionContext from di. > > > I can likely work around some of it if we export DI and then add a BeanRecipe > interface into DI that the BeanRecipe in container would implement. I'd > still need to do some reflection or something to allow support of both 0.3 > and > 0.4.1 to deal with it. However, for 0.4.1, I'd LIKE to do the above but > export container for now with the plan to not export it later. Allow some > time for migration. > > Thoughts? > > > -- > Daniel Kulp > [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
