This seems reasonable enough. It appears to me that Karaf currently doesn't really have a webapp launcher. As with the new HttpService release, Karaf provides an example to bootstrap Karaf inside a web container, but it's just an example, not part of the codebase. I'm also not sure if the example will actually work consistently across containers - it assumes that ServletContext.getRealPath() will always return a non-null value, which isn't the case.
In any case, as I said originally, I'm open to other suggestions on how to implement this. I just happen to like the start-level-based directory thing that Sling does. Justin -----Original Message----- From: Sten Roger Sandvik [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 3:26 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Default web app integration behavior I have actually wanted this for a long time. But I always tought this was the Karaf idea. Karaf has a webapp launcher, but it's not very feature rich. Maybe Karaf should have a launcher framework like sling. Possibly porting slings launchpad framework to Karaf and make it a little more generic. What does the Karaf folks think? /srs On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Edelson, Justin <[email protected] > wrote: > In a sense... One way to look at this is that I'm proposing that the > code in > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/trunk/http/samples/bridge/ < > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/trunk/http/samples/bridge/> be > enhanced, formalized and included as part of the HttpService > distribution (in the org.apache.felix.http.proxy jar) rather than > having anyone wanting to embed Felix in a webapp write boilerplate code based on the sample (or, as I did originally, the Sling codebase). > > This isn't to say that anyone will be forced to use this; if you want > to write your own ServletContextListener, go at it. I just think Felix > can establish some default behavior and provide the glue code which > implements this behavior. I believe the below defines a reasonable > default behavior, but I'm open to other ideas. > > I am proposing a new launcher in the sense that I'd like to see a > standard/default way of embedding Felix in a web container without > needing to write any code. Although the 2.0.2 release of HttpService > has reduced the amount of code/config necessary to do so (and > eliminated a dependency on Equinox's bridge servlet), I think a > reasonable default "launcher" is a worthwhile effort, mostly because I > don't have an overwhelming desire to write the code I describe below > more than once and can't imagine I'm the only one who needs/wants to do this. > > Does that help to clarify my intent? > > Justin > > ________________________________ > > From: Richard S. Hall [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tue 10/6/2009 7:31 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Default web app integration behavior > > > > Just to be clear, you are proposing a new launcher for the Felix > framework to support web applications? > > -> richard > > On 10/7/09 0:27, Edelson, Justin wrote: > > As mentioned in the HttpService release thread, I'd like to see a > > default > ServletContextListener provided by Felix. I'm happy to provide a patch > to do this, based on code I've already written (which is, in turn, > based on Sling code). Before doing this, I'd like to get some feedback > on what I believe the default behavior to be. > > > > Here's what I'd like to propose as a starting point for the default > > Felix > webapp configuration: > > > > Felix will provide a ServletContextListener in the proxy module > > named > DefaultFelixListener. This class will create a configuration map and > then instantiate Felix using this map. > > The map is populated with: > > -- System properties > > -- the contents of /WEB-INF/framework.properties > > -- servlet context init params > > > > If this configuration map does not contain either > org.osgi.framework.system.packages > org.osgi.framework.system.packages.extra > keys, the value of the org.osgi.framework.system.packages.extra > property will be created by combining the following: > > * the list of compendium packages > > * the value of felix.webapp.system.packages.extra (if defined in the > configuration map) > > * javax.servlet and javax.servlet.http with a version corresponding > > to > the result of > ServletContext.getMajorVersion()+"."+ServletContext.getMinorVersion() > > > > The configuration map will also contain an instance of a class > > called > BootstrapInstaller (see below), wrapped inside a list, under the > felix.systembundles.activators key. Potentially, this this should be > extensible using a protected hook method which subclasses can implement). > > > > (in the example code, #1 and #2 are handled by a separate class, but > > I'm > not sure this is a good idea as it makes it harder for downstream > users to override the default behavior) > > > > The BootstrapInstaller class, which implements BundleActivator, does > > the > following: > > * Save the BundleContext in a servlet context attribute named > org.osgi.framework.BundleContext. > > * Create a list of subdirectories under /WEB-INF/resources/bundles. > > Each > subdirectory name must be parseable as a number. This number will be > taken as the start level for the bundles contained within that directory. > > * For each bundle (defined as files ending in .jar or .war) within > > each > subdirectory of /WEB-INF/resources/bundles, read the manifest and > ensure it has a symbolic name. > > * Install or update each bundle: > > -- if no bundle with the symbolic name is already installed > > -- if a bundle with the same symbolic name is installed, but has an > earlier version > > -- if a bundle with the same symbolic name and version is installed, > > but > the version ends in "-SNAPSHOT". > > * Start all the installed bundles > > > > This behavior is basically a subset of what Sling currently does > > (except > that Sling doesn't deal with war files or have the SNAPSHOT behavior, > both of which I happen to need). Sling also does the "saving the > bundle context as a servlet context attribute in a separate > BundleActivator, which is reasonable enough). > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
