I think the wheels came off a while ago when ppl started promoting RSA for publishing JAX-RS services because this is supported by an extension of a RSA implementation ;)
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:31 PM Timothy Ward <tim.w...@paremus.com> wrote: > 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 Schneiderhttp://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architecthttp://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
_______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
