The whole camel blueprint as well as camel OSGi integration in general is
kind of shoehorned on top of a non OSGi system.
It works but it is a bit fragile.

Christian

Am Di., 4. Dez. 2018 um 16:03 Uhr schrieb Ryan Moquin <
[email protected]>:

> I didn't see this thread until now, but just wanted to add that I use
> blueprint with Camel all the time very successfully. There were a few
> hiccups that were resolved around injecting configurations into the tests
> for a specific PID, but in the testing stuff was put together nicely as
> well.
>
> I'd be curious what specific problems you have with it since I was able to
> figure it out pretty easily from the Camel documentation.
>
> I would however like to see some of these hurdles in general get
> addressed.  I'd like to see open source projects in general modularize
> themselves.  When I need to use one that just half-@ssed some osgi
> support or no osgi support but split packages in their jars, it's quite
> frustrating.  I love writing code using osgi.  The power you have is tough
> to wield at first, but you can do some awesome stuff when you figure it out
> (and workaround some of the current hurdles still be hashed out).
>
> Ryan
>
> Ryan
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018, 1:34 PM Raymond Auge <[email protected]
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:23 AM Ranx <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Raymond,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the information. I was probably unaware of the RI because it
>>> isn't listed on the Aries website
>>
>>
>> Good point! So I did some updates to the main page [1]. I will try to
>> make further updates to other pages as time permits.
>>
>> [1] http://aries.apache.org/
>>
>>
>>> and the only annotations I was aware of
>>> from there were the Blueprint annotations. Also, PAX CDI has been
>>> installed
>>> in Fuse for some time now although in the 6.x version (Karaf 2.x) it was
>>> only the RC so i refrained from using it for production code. Fuse 7 is
>>> currently Karaf 4.2.x and has the 1.2 version of PAX CDI installed as a
>>> default.
>>>
>>> I think I saw a presentation you gave at Eclipsecon Europe (on Youtube)
>>> on
>>> the work you were doing with CDI and OSGi/J2EE. There seemed to be a lot
>>> of
>>> work going on there for interoperability with J2EE and not just as OSGi.
>>
>>
>> So there's nothing really specific to Java EE per say other than to
>> ensure that OSGi CDI Integration could naturally accommodate other CDI
>> Portable Extensions in a friendly, portable way. As such, integration of
>> Java EE specs could be accomplished without any hacks. This model could be
>> used just as easily to make your own features available to your CDI bundles.
>>
>>
>>> For
>>> me the J2EE part isn't as relevant but if the OSGi service dynamism and
>>> injection and wire up work correctly that works for me.
>>>
>>
>> Perfect, so there's nothing for you to worry about because this is the
>> base model.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Now to get Red Hat to embrace it and it'll be golden.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, let's see what we can do! ;)
>>
>> - Ray
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from: http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Karaf-User-f930749.html
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Raymond Augé* <http://www.liferay.com/web/raymond.auge/profile>
>>  (@rotty3000)
>> Senior Software Architect *Liferay, Inc.* <http://www.liferay.com>
>>  (@Liferay)
>> Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance <http://osgi.org>
>> (@OSGiAlliance)
>>
>

-- 
-- 
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de

Computer Scientist
http://www.adobe.com

Reply via email to