> Add the property service.exported.interfaces=* and some provider specific > properties to your OSGi service.
And this is where the wheels come off. This statement is *wrong*. if you *have* to add some provider specific properties then this is no longer RSA, but some implementation specific thing. No compliant RSA provider requires you to add service properties other than service.exported.interfaces. If an implementation does require some specific properites then the RSA CT would fail, because it would need to know about all the different implementations’ properties. It is perfectly possible to create an example which shows RSA by starting two frameworks, one hosting the remote service and the other consuming it. There are numerous inter-compatible distribution, topology and discovery layers that could be used, many of which require no configuration or external services. > This will not really help a user to get it up and running. Absolutely it will - it will get them up and running, and after that they can start asking questions about types of distribution and types of discovery, but crucially they only need to ask if it matters to them! At that point they can ask about how to get more sophisticated discovery, and be directed to an implementation-specific list if necessary. Tim > On 10 Nov 2016, at 11:19, Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote: > > If my example is just about exposing a service using REST or TCP then the > generic part will be: > Add the property service.exported.interfaces=* and some provider specific > properties to your OSGi service. > The TopologyManager will pick up your service and export it using the > RemoteServiceAdmin service of your implementation. > > This will not really help a user to get it up and running. > > On the other hand it is not necessary to explain the architecture to get > someone up and running. So while I think the architecture of RSA is really > great it is not what people need to get started. > > Christian > > On 10.11.2016 12:00, Timothy Ward wrote: >> Hi Christian, >> >>> Unfortunately it is not really possible to describe a practical example for >>> RSA without implementation specific details. >> >> I disagree with this statement. It’s perfectly possible to discuss the RSA >> architecture, and then to provide an example which uses one of the >> implementations without listing any implementation details. The >> implementation details should not matter at all for a practical example! The >> thing that will matter is the set of bundles that you need to deploy for the >> RSA implementation, but beyond that it’s just a case of starting up some >> frameworks and following the specification properties. >> >> If it weren’t possible to do this then it would not have been possible to >> create a Compliance Test Suite for RSA! >> >> Tim > > > > > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de <http://www.liquid-reality.de/> > > Open Source Architect > http://www.talend.com <http://www.talend.com/> > _______________________________________________ > OSGi Developer Mail List > osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org > https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
_______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
