I’ve never seen DS used in the wild other than in places where say central infrastructure IT provides container services and frameworks.
Still have to see a lot of CDI use and with PaaS offerings and Spring revamps and a lot of push BP is from what I gather the only viable alternative. Just my 0.02c. Since most developers out there just see it as a tool or necessary evil in a corporate setting, they don’t really grok services, registrations, proxies, NamespaceHandlers, SPI providers and so on anyways. I think it is a very philosophical debate. /je > On Aug 27, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Brad Johnson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > While I understand the benefits of DS I'm wondering if it makes much > difference for end users. I mean if I were creating a library for commons, > XStream, Beanio or something else then it makes a lot of sense to expose it > via DS. > > But when creating end user bundles with Camel routes, beans, interfaces, and > OSGi services the service damping provided by blueprint seems like a positive > benefit in that one doesn't have to worry about start up order. > > That's doubly true now that I've been working with pax-cdi and Camel. I'd > say the development time is cut in half. The OSGiSeriviceProvider (sp?) > annotation still uses blueprint proxies behind the scenes but I don't think > that's a problem. What it does do is eliminate the need for all the XML > configuration which can result in typos and other issues. > > What are the views on this? > > Brad
