If cxf really does not have this capability, which I find hard to believe, I would do the “publish to cxf” generically by having a component with a dynamic reference (or a service tracker, but if your component is DS a dynamic reference is easier) that uses service properties to figure out what to tell cxf.
A pretty simple example of how to do this is in the aries imx jmx-whiteboard project, which is more complicated than you would need since it has to deal with multiple MBean servers whereas I think you would have only one cxf. thanks david jencks > On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:45 PM, David Jencks > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: >> I think both of those suggestions are rather inappropriate to be used in a >> DS component activate method, which generally should not block….. although >> having it take a long time is also very much less than ideal. >> >> Certainly the second method seems to imply someone knows how many B2s there >> are so the minimum cardinality can be set based on that knowledge, possibly >> by whatever code has that knowledge. The (proprietary) metatype/config >> admin I work with does this, it can count how many cm Configurations there >> are for B2 and set properties based on that. >> >> If you make B3 expose a service and not be immediate, then it won’t be >> activated until someone needs it and will pick up however many are then >> available, even without the cardinality set. > > Dilemma: B3's job in life is to publish a JAX-RS service via CXF, > which does not involve publishing an OSGi service. So I may need to > stick with one of these less-than-ideal alternatives. > > >> >> david jencks >> >>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Neil Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Just to add a bit of detail… >>> >>> If you wait for 5 service instances before performing your initialisation, >>> that’s great. But bear in mind that you might get a 6th and a 7th very soon >>> afterwards, and depending on your implementation you may have to >>> re-initialise each time that happens. >>> >>> If your (re)initialisation is expensive, you might want to avoid doing it >>> too many times, especially if there is a rapid sequence of changes. This is >>> typically the case during application startup for example. There are two >>> general solutions to this: >>> >>> 1) You could start a timer each time the service set changes. If there are >>> no further changes before the timer expires, then you do your >>> reinitialisation. If there *are* changes then you cancel the existing timer >>> and start a new one. >>> >>> 2) Use the Coordinator Service (OSGi Compendium Specification, chapter >>> 130). Whoever is making changes to the set of installed bundles — e.g. the >>> launcher, or some kind of management agent like FileInstall — should start >>> a Coordination before it does anything, and end the coordination after that >>> series of changes. Your component should be a Participant which detects >>> whether there is a current coordination. If there is NO current >>> coordination then it should immediately action any changes in the service >>> set. However if there is a current coordination, then those changes should >>> only be actioned when the coordination ends. This has the advantage that >>> you don’t waste time waiting for an arbitrary-length timer to expire. >>> >>> Hope that helps. Regards, >>> Neil >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 7 Sep 2015, at 16:16, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> That is precisely what I needed. Thanks. >>>> On Sep 7, 2015 11:06 AM, "David Jencks" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Benson, >>>>> >>>>> I don’t really understand what you are asking, but I’m going to guess. >>>>> >>>>> I think you have say 5 B2 services and you want B3 to wait to activate >>>>> until all 5 B2’s are available? >>>>> >>>>> There is a way to do this with DS 1.3, but you have to make B3 >>>>> configuration-policy=REQUIRE. >>>>> >>>>> So you have in B3: >>>>> @Component(configuration-policy=REQUIRE) >>>>> public class B3 { >>>>> >>>>> @Reference(cardinality=MULTIPLE) >>>>> void setB2(B2 b2) {} >>>>> } >>>>> In your (required) configuration for B3 you put a property >>>>> >>>>> B2.cardinality.minimum: 5 >>>>> >>>>> that is, <reference-name>.cardinality.minimum = <number of required B2’s> >>>>> >>>>> Don’t mess with start levels, they will be unreliable for this purpose. >>>>> There’s no guarantee that a bundle starting will start all the DS services >>>>> it provides. They might have all sorts of unsatisfied dependencies….. >>>>> such >>>>> as missing configurations. >>>>> >>>>> Let me know if this guess is a total miss :-) >>>>> >>>>> thanks >>>>> david jencks >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I am hoping that David Jencks will continue his charity to strangers >>>>> here. >>>>>> >>>>>> David, if you have any gogo jiras you'd like help with in return, just >>>>> ask. >>>>>> >>>>>> Three bundles: >>>>>> >>>>>> B1 registers service S1. >>>>>> >>>>>> B2 consumes S1 and uses it in the implementation of S2. That is to >>>>>> say, it picks up a reference to S1 with a DS @Reference with >>>>>> cardinality MANDATORY. >>>>>> >>>>>> B3 consumes B2, but it anticipates that B2 will have siblings. So it >>>>>> consumes a reference to a List<S2> with cardinality AT_LEAST_ONE. >>>>>> >>>>>> It can take B2 and buddies a bit of time to activate. >>>>>> >>>>>> I appreciate that the most general case is intended to be that >>>>>> services come and go, and B3 should dynamically reconfigure itself. >>>>>> I'd rather not do that yet; I'd like to arrange things so that B3 >>>>>> waits to finish starting itself until all the B2-ish guys are fully >>>>>> set up. >>>>>> >>>>>> Assuming that B2 and friends are all started at an earlier start >>>>>> level, is there an 'esthetic' way to arrange this? Or should I really >>>>>> suck it up and do the late-binding so that B3 says, 'OK, _now_ I need >>>>>> B2 service x=y, block until it's available?' >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> 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] >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>
