Vincent Massol wrote: > Hi devs, > > I've been researching what it would take to be able to support the Extension > Manager use case regarding components isolation and dependency versioning. I > won't go over the details of all I've researched (you can ask questions for > that). I'm just proposing a series of steps and a vision of the future for > our component model. > > If you're interested in the topic I would recommend that you read the Weld > tutorial on CDI: > docs.jboss.org/weld/reference/1.0.0/en-US/html_single/ > > Here are the steps I'm willing to work on and implement. > > Step 1: timeframe from now: 1 month > * Use JSR330 annotations +1 this looks like it is necessary since these annotations are apparently used by JSR299 and JSR330 and are almost exactly the same as Guice's API.
> > Step 2: timeframe from now: 1 month > * Do a POC of integrating xwiki-component with OSGi (as a > xwiki-component-osgi module). > - No versioning management yet. > - Need to use a maven osgi plugin to generate Manifest files from the POMs > * Revise further steps based on result from Step 2. > > Step 3: timeframe from now: 2 months > * If step 2 is successful add what's needed to the XWiki Component API to > perform generic lookup: CM.lookup(Class, Properties) where Properties is a > set of properties registered with the component. It would contain the role > hint and the version for example. Also add annotations for specifying > dependency version ranges. > > Note: After step 3 we have the prereqs for the Extension Manager done. The > other steps below are improvements and steps to put us in the standards > direction. > > Step 4: timeframe from now: 6 months-2 years > * When CDI (JSR299) has taken over the world (ie several DI frameworks > migrate to it, it becomes a JavaSE de facto standard at least), migrate to > it. We need 2 features not in the spec right now: Why JSR299 over Guice API? > - support for dynamic bean registration > - ability to implement CDI over OSGi Why CDI over OSGi? One package can't do all that is needed? > * Work with the Weld dev team to add support for those 2 items above. They're > interested to implement it if we help them and if these 2 items get done > relatively quickly we could migrate to CDI earlier than the timeframe above > * In the meantime we can monitor it carefully to see its progress and we > could start migrating to it slowly. Some ideas: > - use the CDI annotations instead of the xwiki-specific ones for the binding > part > - introduce new concepts that comes from CDI: decorators, interceptors, > producers > - refactor our observation module to use the CDI event model > > Step 5: timeframe for now: 2-4 years > * When JSR294 is approved and final (will require at least JDK 7, so XWiki > needs to be on JDK7 at least for this, so that's a few years in the > future...) migrate to CDI over JSR294 over (Jigsaw, OSGi). The good part is > that since we would be using CDI we won't need to change much in our code to > do that. > > WDYT? > > Thanks > -Vincent > > Links: > - Weld/JSR299: docs.jboss.org/weld/reference/1.0.0/en-US/html_single/ > - Jigsaw: openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/ > - JSR330: > atinject.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/javadoc/javax/inject/package-summary.html > - JSR294: See description on openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/ > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
