Thanks Raymond, that gives a good picture on what we already support. So a
new binding.osgi
will not be required at this stage. Let me drop my plan on this.


On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> In the prototype of RFC 119 with Tuscany/SCA, we use "implementation.osgi"
> to represent the OSGi bundle as an SCA component in the assembly. The OSGi
> services provided by the bundle are mapped into SCA services while the OSGi
> service references consumed by the bundle are mapped into SCA references.
> It's an OSGi centric view and Tuscany/SCA is used as the distribution
> software. SCA is mostly transparent to the OSGi application code.
>
> If an SCA composite is used within an OSGi bundle to describe the assembly
> (especially the POJOs in the bundle), we could have something like
> binding.osgi to bridge SCA into the OSGi world such as:
>
> * OSGi service binding: register SCA services into the OSGi service
> registry
> * OSGi reference binding: access an existing OSGi service from SCA
> components (if a bundle has been modeled as implementation.osgi, then the
> OSGi services are already mapped to SCA services which can be directly wired
> from an SCA reference without the introduction of binding.osgi).
> As Graham pointed out, the usage is limited to portion of the SCA
> composition is hosted by an OSGi runtime.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
>  *From:* Ramkumar R <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 08, 2009 5:16 AM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Implementing SCA OSGi Binding in Tuscany
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Graham Charters 
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>>
>> If binding.osgi does go ahead we should make sure the information
>> described to configure the bindings (to map between OSGi and SCA
>> services) is consistent with that described for implementation.osgi,
>> since both would be configuring the same mappings.
>>
>> Regards, Graham.
>>
>
> Thanks Simon and Graham for your comments, it sounds like we need to do
> more work on implementation.osgi
> or explore more with what we have already got.
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
> Ramkumar Ramalingam
>



-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam

Reply via email to