Yes but doesn't the independent start up order of DS require configuration of start up order?
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Timothy Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Brad, > > > On 27 Aug 2016, at 17:45, 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. > > Independence of startup ordering is a benefit of using OSGi services in > general - it applies to DS, Blueprint, and anything else that uses the OSGi > service registry properly. It has little to do with damping. > > The service damping from blueprint is actually more harmful than helpful > in many cases. As there is never any bean destruction or re-injection there > is no way to guarantee that the object reference you hold actually points > at anything. When combined with blueprint’s “block for a really long time” > behaviour on missing references this can wreak havoc in your system. > Optional services are really horrible in this model. > > As things stand currently blueprint is most widely used for working with > Camel. From what I can tell configuring Camel is horrible, and my > understanding is that the main advantage of blueprint is that there is a > huge amount of ready-built Camel integration available. If Camel had a > nicer, container agnostic configuration mechanism then I would see little > reason to choose blueprint over DS. > > Regards, > > Tim > > > > > > > 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 > >
