On 6/10/09 2:34 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Yeah, I missed the fact that the framework export the osgi bundles, so
that bnd actually put those in the jar.
However, I've just spotted that a wrong version of the tracker package
is used. We still point to the old version instead of including the
new BundleTracker stuff.
The compendium is not released yet, so I didn't update it. Plus, it was
not necessarily clear that BundleTracker would be included in framework
or not.
-> richard
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 01:12, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
On 6/9/09 5:45 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I heard that for the compendium spec. But iirc, the idea was to
include each part of the spec in the implementation bundle.
What about doing the same for core ? i.e. include the core osgi api
inside the framework jar. That would remove some potential problem
where user need to find the corresponding version of the api somewhere
else ...
Yep.
We do embed the OSGi API needed by the framework (+ service tracker) into
the framework JAR. We will continue to do this. I just mean there will be no
separate OSGi JARs released by us anymore...and we likely can delete the
source from our repo if the official JARs are put into a maven repo some
place.
-> richard
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 23:13, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org>
wrote:
On 6/9/09 4:52 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
The only dependency is on the ServiceException which is part of 4.2.
I guess we can use a snapshot of the osgi api for now.
Btw, is there any location where such snapshots are deployed ? I
haven't found any recent build on
http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository
We don't plan on publishing the OSGi APIs any more, nor am I aware of
anyone
who does. The R4.2 JAR should go final and be made public any day now, so
we
won't have to wait too long and then someone can put it in a repo some
place.
Regarding the ServiceException, that is in trunk now.
-> richard
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 22:24, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org>
wrote:
On 6/9/09 4:11 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I'm maintaing locally a git branch of karaf which uses blueprint
instead of spring-dm. The blueprint implementation is a bit more
mature / stable now and I think it would be a good idea to switch.
That said, we should also provide a feature to allow spring-dm powered
bundles to be deployed. There are still a couple of things to do (fix
the integration tests, display back spring-dm bundles in osgi/list
command if spring-dm is installed), but my branch does not seem too
broken.
The only drawback I can see is that blueprint will depend on OSGi 4.2
(the current implementation has hacked the only dep on 4.2 so that it
can run on the latest felix release). I've seen the api has been
updated, so maybe we can depend on a felix snapshot for now.
What 4.2 dependencies? The Felix 2.0.0 release should include the R4.2
API
as you've already noticed, so this shouldn't be an issue, but if you
need
something specific implemented, we should try to coordinate that...
-> richard
So i'd like to commit the changes I have locally to avoid doing that
in the dark for too long a time. Thoughts ?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 15:45, Guillaume Nodet<gno...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The past days, I've been working on the blueprint implementation
inside Geronimo [1].
The spec is still being written so the implementation is not really
stable and is still missing a lot of features.
However, it's already somewhat usable and as I've hacked Karaf to
start using blueprint instead of spring-dm in a branch [2].
Tests do not even compile, but I've been able to start the console,
so
I thought I would talk about it a bit.
This raises the question whether we want to switch to blueprint
instead of spring-dm.
I think we should, and even have to, given that Spring-DM will
switch
to support Blueprint at some point in the future too. Also the
blueprint spec is way better than spring-dm wrt to namespace handlers
(that are considered dependencies, so we would not have problems with
namespace handlers not being available when a bundle is started) and
classloading (i think classes loaded for namespace handlers will be
loaded from the namespace handler bundle, thus freeing the bundle to
import all the namespace handlers packages), though those areas are
in
flux.
If so, we might even want to do that before renaming the packages, as
the patch is quite big and would be quite broken after the rename
imho
...
As for tests, we'd have to switch to something else, which could be
junit4osgi from iPojo or pax-exam for example.
Feedback welcome.
[1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/blueprint
[2]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/sandbox/gnodet/karaf-blueprint/
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
