On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:50 PM, Ivan wrote:
After reading some code changes of the geronimo-kenel in the sanbox,
I found that we keep the Geronimo kenel as an OSGI service, and each
Configuration ( or a bundle) will search it and start the
configuration as we do in the past while starting.
There's a difference in lifecycles between osgi bundles and geronimo
configurations.
OSGI:
bundles can be installed, in which case the classes are not available,
or started, in which case the classes are all available and the bundle
activator has been started. AFAICT there is no other built in "no-
really-start-it" state beyond "started". There might be more less-
started states I'm not aware of.
Geronimo:
A Configuration is a gbean. You can't get much usefaul data out of it
until its started. Once it is started the classes are available and
you can find out what services (gbeans) are in the configuration and
look at their attributes. There's a further state of "all gbeans
started". The configuration manager treats these states as "loaded"
and "started"
So far it seems to work to do something similar in the osgi
environment but it doesn't really fit very well yet. I'm not sure
where we will end up with this.
I have a feeling that, if we do that, Geronimo is still a part of
OSGI env, could we make the Geronimo is an OSGI env?
I don't understand what you are asking here. In the sandbox, geronimo
plugins are running in an osgi enviroment, and all the classes are
loaded from osgi bundles. Could you explain more what you are asking
about?
Could we publish GBeans as OSGI service via a
ConfigurationActivator, or though a GBean-OSGI adapter ?
I'm pretty sure we could, but I'd like to get more stuff working
before we decide if its a good idea. IIUC blueprint doesn't publish
every blueprint bean as an osgi service, but only ones you configure
to be published. I suspect we may want to, similarly, only publish
some gbeans as osgi services.
My current approach is to try to modify the existing geronimo
architecture relatively little where possible to get it to run in
osgi, respecting osgi architecture. So, I am trying to get stuff
working with the kernel as an osgi service, get the deployers working,
etc etc. I think after we have done this we will have a much better
idea what other work we want to try. For instance, we might not need
a kernel at all: possibly gbeans can just be osgi services with a few
extra attributes.
thanks
david jencks
Thanks !
2009/9/22 Rex Wang <[email protected]>
Yes! hope for detail sharing :-)
-Rex
2009/9/22 Jack Cai <[email protected]>
David, that's exciting work!
It'll be great if you can share some more details. There are a few
puzzles that flow around my mind -
* Are we just taking OSGi framework in as another plug-in to let it
host OSGi applications? Or, vice-versa, we are converting Geronimo
into an OSGi application?
* If the latter case, will GBean go away?
* If yes, how much code changes are required? I'd say a lot ...
-Jack
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:25 AM, David Jencks
<[email protected]> wrote:
Over the weekend I got my sandbox osgi framework to build and
generate all the plugins as osgi bundles. This involves running
some of the geronimo server on osgi/felix inside maven. The
dependency management system seems to work OK at least for starting
bundles. I also started doing a little bit of code cleanup.
I think the next step will be to get the framework server running in
standalone karaf or felix. Hopefully this will be no harder than
getting it running in embedded felix in maven.
thanks
david jencks
--
Ivan
