+1 for simplified OSGI integration Oli ________________________________________ Von: Guillaume Sauthier [guillaume.sauth...@objectweb.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. September 2010 09:26 An: dev@cxf.apache.org Betreff: Re: Fun with the survey
a big +1 for OSGi friendlyness :) --G Le 30/09/2010 03:22, Willem Jiang a écrit : > On 9/30/10 5:32 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: >> >> 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? > It makes sense to create a OSGiExtensionManager for > ExtensionManagerBus and SpringBus to use :) > > With this ExtensionManager, I think we can make OSGiServletTransport > more easy to use which means the bus could wait the ServletTransport > Service to start, and we don't need to let the Servlet to init the > endpoints application context any more. > > That is what I'm exciting about. > > >> >> 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 >> > >
