Just to clarify (since I think I may have generated too much excitement around this)... :-)
My thought are more around "fixing" the current ExtensionManagerBus to get all the features working properly with the extension mechanism that is currently in place. When that works, creating a new implementation of ExtensionManager that would lookup in the OSGi registry the various extensions should be relatively easy. Thus, it's not so much an "OSGIBus" as it is making the ExtensionManagerBus something more usable, which would include in an OSGi environment. Longer term, we could then substitute the SpringBus stuff with a new SpringExtensionManager or similar and pretty much get down to one bus, with a couple of managers. It would hopefully simplify things a bit. We don't really need 3 bus implementations. :-) Make sense? Dan On Wednesday 29 September 2010 5:22:00 pm Adrian Trenaman wrote: > +1 for an osgibus! > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Johan Edstrom [mailto:seij...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 01:19 PM > To: dev@cxf.apache.org <dev@cxf.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Fun with the survey > > +1 on an osgibus, that would be great. > > On Sep 28, 2010, at 8:10 PM, Willem Jiang wrote: > > On 9/29/10 4:06 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > >> On Monday 27 September 2010 9:44:25 pm Benson Margulies wrote: > >>> It looks like our close and personal relationship with Spring > >>> continues to really inconvenience very few and serve the majority. I > >>> wonder if we would want to invest energy in merely designing some > >>> scheme to make Spring more removable to assist some volunteer in > >>> working on it? > >> > >> Well, this is something I keep thinking about quite a lot latetly. > >> There are several areas where we use Spring and expose spring to the > >> user: > >> > >> > >> 1) Wiring our own bus together > >> > >> 2) Providing configuration and namespace handlers and such for the user > >> to more easily use CXF with spring > >> > >> 3) Using/abusing the spring aop stuff for things like transactions and > >> sessions scopes and such > >> > >> 4) JMS transport > >> > >> > >> I really don't want to touch on #4. Even the JMS guys say Spring JMS is > >> the way to go to get JMS done correctly. > >> > >> For #3, we do provide some factories for some of the scopes and such, > >> but again, spring does much of that so much better. > >> > >> Everything done for #2 there are good API's (that the spring things > >> call) and thus can be done programatically. If someone has a > >> different config mechanism, it's not hard to create a new one. > >> > >> That really leaves #1. We DO provide a non-spring version of the bus > >> (The ExtensionBus stuff), but it has a bunch of limitations in what it > >> can pick up and wire together and such. Much of the SecPolicy stuff > >> won't work for example. This is something I was THINKING about > >> looking at more for 2.4, partially to make things much more OSGi > >> friendly where the various modules can be relatively independent > >> bundles that an "OSGIBus" could grab via tha OSGi registries and such. > >> Yea. Brain is noodling, but hasn't gotten very far yet. > > > > +1 for the OSGiBus idea, I saw lots of customer issues about using a > > wrong bus configurations in OSGi. We could do some work to make life > > easier :) > > Johan Edstrom > > j...@opennms.org > > They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary > safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. > > Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org http://dankulp.com/blog
