On 6/6/13 5:21 AM, Chetan Mehrotra wrote:
I have at times also struggled with DS when I moved from Blueprint. Within
a Bundle if there are some internal services which are used by various DS
Components *within* that bundle then is it fine to
1. Register these internal services as DS components but with classes which
are not part of Export-Package list i.e. private classes
Yes (at least) for Apache SCR.
But other bundles are not really prevented from using this service by
this method.
The service still can be fetched, and be used through reflection.
2. Have other DS Components within that bundle refer to these services as
references
Yes.
Chetan Mehrotra
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Michael Täschner <[email protected]>wrote:
Hi Neil,
thanks for the info. Yes that is what you taught last year as well. I just
thought maybe this would be a nice to have extension for component DI
inside bundles without exposing services to the registry. Of course, since
provided by the same bundle, direct Java reference makes sense and is
clearer. I also understand this makes it more streamlined in regard to
lifecycle managment.
Thanks and Regards,
Michael
2013/6/6 Neil Bartlett <[email protected]>
Hi Michael,
Declarative Services components can have full control over the lifecycle
of
classes within their bundle using Java code. I see this as much clearer
and
safer than using XML.
Of course DS components can always access services from the OSGi service
registry, including services that happen to be published from by other DS
components in the same bundle.
Regards,
Neil
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Michael Täschner <[email protected]
wrote:
Hi,
I have a question regarding DS and component interaction inside bundles
- I
can see no explicit support here in the DS spec ? In blueprint this is
realized via beans, but what would be the proposed approach for DS ?
Thanks and Regards,
Michael
2013/6/4 Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]>
Just to add: the Felix SCR annotations also generate metatype
information
and I prefer the typesafe way.
But as Neil said, this is more personal preference/taste, it would be
nice
to have just one set of annotations. But as long as they have
different
feature sets this will be hard to achieve.
Carsten
2013/6/3 Neil Bartlett <[email protected]>
Hi Jorge,
To an extent it is personal preference.
I still prefer the bnd annotations because they are a little bit
more
succinct -- i.e. with shortcuts for the most common combinations --
and
also they have additional support for generating configuration
metadata
document according to the Metatype Service Specification.
Others prefer the DS annotations (or the Felix SCR annotations, yet
another
variation!) because they have a more typesafe way to express
component
properties.
Regards,
Neil
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:46 PM, bokie <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi,
After playing around with DS this weekend I can honestly say that
if
you
haven't tried it, you don't know what you're missing - I can
relate
to
pkrien's post.
- Excellent dependency management abstraction.
- Configuration is a real breeze.
- Controlling a component's lifecycle is also accomplished
really
easily.
- Less boilerplate tasks and greater productivity.
With respect to annotations; what should we be using - bnd or
DS? I
understand that they are only read during compile time to create
the
DS
xml
descriptor, does is really matter or is it merely a personal
preference.
Regards,
Jorge
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-felix.18485.x6.nabble.com/declarative-Services-tp5003596p5003643.html
Sent from the Apache Felix - Users mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
--
Carsten Ziegeler
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
