Obviously everybody needs all these goodies you mention. However the choice is
to do this in iPOJO with a new "language" and new semantics attached to it or
do it in Java. I am very familiar with the semantics of Java and the pain of
the redundancy in Java over iPOJO in this area has not been high enough to make
this switch seem desirable.
Kind regards,
Peter Kriens
On 8 jun 2011, at 15:24, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 6/8/11 9:13, Peter Kriens wrote:
>> The summary for me is that DS is limited to simplifying being a service and
>> depending on other services while iPOJO and Blueprint add a programming
>> language (XML/Annotations) that support services among many, many other
>> features.
>>
>> In my experience DS is the simplest and least intrusive, especially with the
>> SCR or bnd annotations. Blueprint is not my favorite because I consider XML
>> among the worst programming languages one can imagine. I do not have a lot
>> of experience with iPOJO; it is clearly the most powerful but it somehow
>> lacks a compelling reason to switch as none of its additional functions seem
>> worth the effort to switch.
>
> Yeah, who needs things like automatic concurrency handling for services or
> byte-code generated smart service references that eliminate the need to turn
> everything into a component in order to pass around services throughout your
> component? It's better to do all that stuff by hand with DS... ;-)
>
> -> richard
>
> p.s. Sorry, I couldn't resist... :-P
>
>> Anyway, who cares. They all interact very nicely and switching from one to
>> the other is not so hard as long as you could in POJOs.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Peter Kriens
>>
>>
>> On 30 mei 2011, at 13:25, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just stating an incompletely informed opinion here ..
>>>
>>> If you want something simple, light-weight and easy to use, go for
>>> Declarative Services.
>>>
>>> If you want elaborate functionality or need something Declarative
>>> Services does not provide, consider iPojo (I understand it is an
>>> evolution of Declarative Services, right ?)
>>>
>>> If you have a Spring background go for blueprint.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Felix, whose loves and sticks with Declarative Services ;-)
>>>
>>> Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 02:23 +0100 schrieb jie yan:
>>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Alasdair Nottingham<n...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alasdair Nottingham
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25 May 2011, at 22:16, "Richard S. Hall"<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/25/11 16:26, Alasdair Nottingham wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is good I might link to it, or pinch it for the aries webpage too
>>>>>>> if that is ok. When doing that thought I would put some changes into
>>>>>>> the blueprint column. The Aries blueprint implementation provides some
>>>>>>> value add that would change some of the No's into Yes's.
>>>>>> Sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One thing though in component lifecycle control you have a Partial
>>>>>>> down for blueprint I was wondering what you meant by this.
>>>>>> I'd have to review the chapter, I don't really claim to be any Blueprint
>>>>> expert...other than knowing it sucks... ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course if you were an expert you would know how much better it is than
>>>>> anything else ;) let the religious flame war begin, or not.
>>>>>
>>>> In fact, casual users wish for an almighty expert who knows all solutions
>>>> in-depth and exposes them to all.
>>>>
>>>> If there's no such expert, the second best method is, experts of different
>>>> solutions advertise themself and compare with each other.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe that can be called religious flame war, but it's valuable. What we
>>>> really need in open community is simple and perfect product in technology,
>>>> but not many repeat manufacturing wheels like some outside companies.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> drhades
>>>>
>>>>>> -> richard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Alasdair
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25 May 2011 15:29, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/25/11 9:19, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>>>>>>>> We actually have a table in our book (OSGi in Action) that tries to
>>>>>>>>> compare the features...perhaps I could re-create that table on a web
>>>>> page...
>>>>>>>> Ok, I added the table to the iPOJO FAQ on wiki:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FELIX/iPOJO+FAQ#iPOJOFAQ-HowdoesiPOJOcomparetoDeclarativeServicesorBlueprint%3F
>>>>>>>> It's not perfect, but it is better than nothing. It should eventually
>>>>>>>> propagate to our static pages.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clement, please double check the iPOJO features, since you've added
>>>>> features
>>>>>>>> since the book has been published.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -> richard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/11 5:26, jie yan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> drhades
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Alex Karasulu<akaras...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Richard S. Hall<
>>>>> he...@ungoverned.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/24/2011 09:46 PM, jie yan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder what is the difference between these three component
>>>>> runtime.
>>>>>>>>>>>> They all manage service dependencies. Blueprint and iPOJO provide
>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated features than DS. Each has a different focus or goal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I guess everyone like myself is seeing this question occur regularly
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> mailing list. It's a valid question that perhaps we can dedicate a
>>>>>>>>>>> wiki/web
>>>>>>>>>>> page to with the pros and cons.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I myself have many questions and can't really tell which is best for
>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>> needs at directory but I do know that I have to sit down and do the
>>>>>>>>>>> research. However our situation is much more unique since we back
>>>>>>>>>>> configuration information needed to wire the server inside a
>>>>> LDIF/LDAP
>>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>>> backing store. Lots to think about for us.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Excuse the digression on our specific issues but regarding having a
>>>>> page
>>>>>>>>>>> dedicated to the pros and cons of each option at felix could benefit
>>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> our users.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
