I think blueprint is fine for now as it provides nice feature for microbule. I would evaluate DS as Christian suggested.
Regards JB On Nov 23, 2016, 13:58, at 13:58, James Carman <[email protected]> wrote: >Yeah, I just used Blueprint because I'm more familiar with it at the >moment. I want to make the code highly configurable, so I need to play >with the configuration bits of DS and convert it. Another option is to >just use BundleActivators to make very vanilla. Right now, Karaf is my >target, because it has that "build your own container" aspect to it >that I >love. Any tips (or example) on converting stuff to DS would be greatly >welcome! ;) > > >On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 7:35 AM Christian Schneider ><[email protected]> >wrote: > >> One thing about the implementation. >> I noticed that microbule is using blueprint for its own setup. >> I would switch this rather to DS as it has a smaller footprint. >> >> If someone is using microbule with DS then the blueprint overhead is >> substantial. >> If someone would use a DS based microbule with blueprint then the DS >> overhead would be a lot smaller. >> >> Christian >> >> On 21.11.2016 19:03, James Carman wrote: >> > We've been working on a Microservices framework called "Microbule" >which >> > leverages CXF and Karaf (hence the cross-post): >> > >> > https://github.com/jwcarman/microbule >> > >> > The idea is to make writing Microservices easy and fun, by >providing many >> > of the oft-requested features for you out-of-the-box (CORS, >Caching, JSON >> > transformation, validation, etc.). There's a README page that >explains >> how >> > to install/run Microbule in Karaf and how to write your own >services. If >> > you're interested, take it for a spin and let us know what you >think. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > James >> > >> >> >> -- >> Christian Schneider >> http://www.liquid-reality.de >> >> Open Source Architect >> http://www.talend.com >> >>
