Hi Tim, I'm not sure I completely follow this. Would this not limit the reusability of the JNDI uber-bundle? I mean I can equally see use cases for an 'uber' bundle where the user *does* want to use the blueprint functionality and creating a separate 'uber' bundle for every type of use of the functionality certainly isn't right.
I looked at the jndi-url module. This module already declares the blueprint dependency as optional and the code in there is written defensively to work in cases where blueprint is available and where is isn't. Shouldn't we do this for the current 'uber' bundle too? Cheers, David On 16 January 2012 10:44, Timothy Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > > If we were going to do this then I'd suggest removing the blueprint: > namespace from the uber bundle, and making it just a "JNDI spec" bundle. > > > Tim Ward > ------------------- > Apache Aries PMC member & Enterprise OSGi advocate > Enterprise OSGi in Action (http://www.manning.com/cummins) > ------------------- > > >> From: [email protected] >> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:57:16 +0000 >> Subject: Re: Aries JNDI dependencies >> To: [email protected] >> >> Hi Tim, >> >> I think we need to find the balance between 'super modular' and 'user >> friendly'. To me, the jndi-uber bundle seems like the right level of >> modularity for many cases. It provides the JNDI functionality in a >> single bundle with a number of dependencies. >> >> I can understand the need for aries-util and aries-proxy (the >> OSGi/JNDI spec specifies that references need to be proxied). On the >> aries-blueprint dependency, my suggestion is to make it optional so >> that the aries jndi-bundle (the uber bundle) can resolve without >> aries-blueprint being there. It should function as long as you don't >> use the blueprint-specific features... >> >> Cheers, >> >> David >> >> On 16 January 2012 09:36, Timothy Ward <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Hi everyone, >> > >> > There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The JNDI core bundle does not >> > depend on the proxy or blueprint APIs. >> > >> > The bundle David is talking about is the JNDI uber bundle, which by >> > definition depends on everything because it *is* everything. The proxy API >> > is used by the JNDI URL bundle to implement the osgi:service URL scheme. >> > This spec requires damping, which is exactly the sort of thing that the >> > proxy bundle is for. The blueprint API is used to implement the blueprint: >> > URL scheme, which is designed to integrate with blueprint, and so >> > absolutely needs the blueprint API. >> > >> > I would like to ask people not to be so hasty in assuming that >> > dependencies are unnecessary. If you want minimal dependencies then you >> > should be consuming the individual bundles and looking at what they pull >> > in. >> > >> > In this case we could look at avoiding slf4j, although it seems to be >> > popular and other Aries bundles use it. I would be a -1 for removing util, >> > proxy or blueprint dependencies from the JNDI project. The first two >> > because they are a good reuse of existing function, the last because it's >> > part of a really useful feature. If you want to run in an environment that >> > doesn't provide those packages then you can always cut back to the JNDI >> > API and core bundles. >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > Tim Ward >> > ------------------- >> > Apache Aries PMC member & Enterprise OSGi advocate >> > Enterprise OSGi in Action (http://www.manning.com/cummins) >> > ------------------- >> > >> > >> >> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:08:18 +0100 >> >> Subject: Re: Aries JNDI dependencies >> >> From: [email protected] >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> >> Well, the point is that it removes a dependency as it's always >> >> provided by the JRE. >> >> I'm far from being a fan of JUL myself, the only way I'm using it is >> >> when redirecting everything to a nicer backend in pax-logging ;-) >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:05, Felix Meschberger <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > Am 16.01.2012 um 10:01 schrieb Guillaume Nodet: >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 09:57, Felix Meschberger <[email protected]> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> * The SLF4J dependency always drags in at least 2 slf4j bundles. >> >> >>>> Would >> >> >>>> it not be better to have the logging go through the OSGi log service? >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Or java.util.logging if the capabiilities of the log service are seen >> >> >> too limited. >> >> > >> >> > Oh, please, not ;-) >> >> > >> >> > Then rather stick with SLF4J. Thanks. >> >> > >> >> > Regards >> >> > Felix >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ------------------------ >> >> Guillaume Nodet >> >> ------------------------ >> >> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >> >> ------------------------ >> >> FuseSource, Integration everywhere >> >> http://fusesource.com >> > >
