On 28/05/12 18:35, David Bosschaert wrote:
I can understand that it's a significant refactoring.
If you stay within the pure Blueprint model (within the spec) you
shouldn't get bound to Aries. Eclipse Gemini also has an
implementation.
Sure and there was a proposal on how to get Gemini used under the hood,
but the issue is how to get both used as needed.
Having DOSGi migrated to Blueprint and CXF 2.6.x would obviously improve
DOSGi CXF a lot, specifically, its OSGI-'awareness' would increase a lot.
But as I said, there are still quite a few issues in this list:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&jqlQuery=project+%3D+DOSGI+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+ORDER+BY+updated+DESC
which IMHO are quite important to get fixed for the users be able to do
their POCs, before making a big 'leap' forward.
Unfortunately I can not afford spending several weeks on migrating the
code to Blueprint, testing with Aries & Gemini, etc...Perhaps we will
get a bit of help from DOSGI CXF users :-)
Cheers, Sergey
Cheers,
David
On 28 May 2012 18:17, Sergey Beryozkin<sberyoz...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi David
On 28/05/12 18:09, David Bosschaert wrote:
Sounds good, Sergey. I'm all for releasing frequently.
One of the things that I think would be good to tackle is to migrate
to OSGi Blueprint (from of the current Spring-based approach). Is that
something that you were thinking of looking at?
Not really. Some users would like to use Blueprint but not be bound to
Aries. So for me it's a DOSGI 1.4 level issue which will require a
significant time investment.
Cheers, Sergey
Cheers,
David
On 28 May 2012 17:34, Sergey Beryozkin<sberyoz...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
I'm thinking of starting working toward releasing DOSGI 1.3.2.
I think I'll spend the next 2 or months on fixing few issues I can find
some
time for, given that there's a lot of other CXF/etc work that needs to be
taken care of.
I'd like to suggest that the next release will be 1.3.2 as opposed to
1.4.0.
Moving to CXF 2.6.1 at the DOSGI level will be a pretty major effort,
giving
that a minimal bundle in CXF 2.6.x has gone.
It seems that there are still quite a few issues there that are important
to
be fixed for the base/simple DOSGI applications to work reliably and
given
that 2.5.x branch is still relatively 'young', I'd probably prefer to
stay
on 2.5.x (2.5.4 for DOSGI 1.3.2 and might be CXF 2.5.5/2.5.6 for DOSGI
1.3.3), simply to make the most of the limited time that I will be able
to
spend on DOSGi, before making a major switch to CXF 2.6.x - and hoping by
that time many of the 'basic' DOSGI features have been fixed...
Thanks, Sergey
