Hi
On 24/02/15 14:46, Mike Wilson wrote:
Yes, the undesired side-effect for us is that the combination of CXF, Juli
and Pax Logging breaks down. Looking at the code it seems all involved
parties have design decisions done with good intentions and the only
questionable thing is CXF's use of TCCL, which is sort of the trigger of the
problem. So I thought this would be the first thing worth considering as it
is advised against in OSGi.
If not possible to remove TCCL entirely, then it might still be possible to
only set it during the very calls into stuff that need it, instead of during
the whole message cycle?
Can you please describe in more details where setting TCCL in CXF causes
issues with this particular combination ? Or is the problem across CXF ?
I guess a single example would do for us to see if it is.
Are you referring to
public ChainInitiationObserver(Endpoint endpoint, Bus bus) {
super();
this.endpoint = endpoint;
this.bus = bus;
if (bus != null) {
loader = bus.getExtension(ClassLoader.class);
}
}
and then this loader, if not null, is set as TCCL ?
I've just tun a non OSGI test, it is null...
Cheers, Sergey
Best regards
Mike
Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
Are you dealing with some specific side-effects or would just like to
see less of TCCL in CXF ?
I agree with what Christian said - in some cases CXF needs it
as it is
not an OSGI-only framework. But if minimizing the use of TCCL is
possible then I guess it is a good idea.
Sergey
On 24/02/15 09:44, Mike Wilson wrote:
We're using CXF in a Karaf/OSGi setting and have noticed
that CXF makes use
of the contextClassLoader (TCCL), which is considered bad
practice in OSGi.
Some discussion has taken place on the osgi-dev mailing
list, see [1], and
Christian Schneider recommended to take this question to cxf-dev.
Would it be possible to disable, or decrease the scope of,
TCCL usage in CXF
when run inside OSGi?
Looking at the source code I see CXF is already aware that
it is running
inside OSGi through its Blueprint integration, so I'm
thinking maybe this
would be possible to control through the extension mechanism?
Thanks
Mike Wilson
[1]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03643.html
