Migrating to blueprint will also solve https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DOSGI-69 which is a long-standing issue that many people want to see resolved.
David On 28 May 2012 18:51, Sergey Beryozkin <[email protected]> wrote: > FYI: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DOSGI-115 > > The proposed fix will probably work with Gemini straight away :-) > > Sergey > > > On 28/05/12 18:45, Sergey Beryozkin wrote: >> >> On 28/05/12 18:35, David Bosschaert wrote: >>> >>> I can understand that it's a significant refactoring. >>> >>> If you stay within the pure Blueprint model (within the spec) you >>> shouldn't get bound to Aries. Eclipse Gemini also has an >>> implementation. >> >> >> Sure and there was a proposal on how to get Gemini used under the hood, >> but the issue is how to get both used as needed. >> >> Having DOSGi migrated to Blueprint and CXF 2.6.x would obviously improve >> DOSGi CXF a lot, specifically, its OSGI-'awareness' would increase a lot. >> >> But as I said, there are still quite a few issues in this list: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&jqlQuery=project+%3D+DOSGI+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+ORDER+BY+updated+DESC >> >> >> which IMHO are quite important to get fixed for the users be able to do >> their POCs, before making a big 'leap' forward. >> >> Unfortunately I can not afford spending several weeks on migrating the >> code to Blueprint, testing with Aries & Gemini, etc...Perhaps we will >> get a bit of help from DOSGI CXF users :-) >> >> Cheers, Sergey >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> David >>> >>> On 28 May 2012 18:17, Sergey Beryozkin<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi David >>>> >>>> On 28/05/12 18:09, David Bosschaert wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sounds good, Sergey. I'm all for releasing frequently. >>>>> >>>>> One of the things that I think would be good to tackle is to migrate >>>>> to OSGi Blueprint (from of the current Spring-based approach). Is that >>>>> something that you were thinking of looking at? >>>>> >>>> Not really. Some users would like to use Blueprint but not be bound to >>>> Aries. So for me it's a DOSGI 1.4 level issue which will require a >>>> significant time investment. >>>> >>>> Cheers, Sergey >>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> On 28 May 2012 17:34, Sergey Beryozkin<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm thinking of starting working toward releasing DOSGI 1.3.2. >>>>>> I think I'll spend the next 2 or months on fixing few issues I can >>>>>> find >>>>>> some >>>>>> time for, given that there's a lot of other CXF/etc work that needs >>>>>> to be >>>>>> taken care of. >>>>>> I'd like to suggest that the next release will be 1.3.2 as opposed to >>>>>> 1.4.0. >>>>>> Moving to CXF 2.6.1 at the DOSGI level will be a pretty major effort, >>>>>> giving >>>>>> that a minimal bundle in CXF 2.6.x has gone. >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems that there are still quite a few issues there that are >>>>>> important >>>>>> to >>>>>> be fixed for the base/simple DOSGI applications to work reliably and >>>>>> given >>>>>> that 2.5.x branch is still relatively 'young', I'd probably prefer to >>>>>> stay >>>>>> on 2.5.x (2.5.4 for DOSGI 1.3.2 and might be CXF 2.5.5/2.5.6 for DOSGI >>>>>> 1.3.3), simply to make the most of the limited time that I will be >>>>>> able >>>>>> to >>>>>> spend on DOSGi, before making a major switch to CXF 2.6.x - and >>>>>> hoping by >>>>>> that time many of the 'basic' DOSGI features have been fixed... >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Sergey >>>>>> >>>> > > > -- > Sergey Beryozkin > > Talend Community Coders > http://coders.talend.com/ > > Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com
