Hi David, All
So far I'm really behind the target of getting DOSGI 1.3.2 released
around this time of the year. I'm managed to get a bit of time and
resolved DOSGI-111, however it's difficult for me right now to
prioritize on other DOSGI JIRAs - I'm a bit overwhelmed with the current
and the incoming (JAX-)RS related tasks. Somehow, Jettison
1.3.2 will have to be released as well.
However I'm intending to keep the process going - the plan is to attempt
to fix at least one specific JIRA, particularly to do with managing
multiple contexts, etc, every 2 or so weeks. Not perfect :-), but there
will be some progress.
David, I've seen you creating a new subsystem distribution.
Will it let us drop a single bundle distro ?
Cheers, Sergey
On 29/05/12 12:11, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
On 29/05/12 08:12, David Bosschaert wrote:
Migrating to blueprint will also solve
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DOSGI-69 which is a
long-standing issue that many people want to see resolved.
Agreed. I'd still see this migration as a 1.4-level issue.
I can see 4-5 issues in the list that can help people with getting to
move forward with DOSGi without requiring a lot of time to spend on
fixing them, so I'd look at them for 1.3.2
It's a shame I've a little understanding at the moment how Aries works
under the hood, not to say how Gemini does :-). I'm having some little
progress with a single patch I just did for Aries though :-)
Having someone who has a deeper understanding of Aries and possibly
Gemini contributing toward this possible migration would be welcome.
Cheers, Sergey
David
On 28 May 2012 18:51, Sergey Beryozkin<sberyoz...@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DOSGI-115
The proposed fix will probably work with Gemini straight away :-)
Sergey
On 28/05/12 18:45, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
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
--
Sergey Beryozkin
Talend Community Coders
http://coders.talend.com/
Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com
--
Sergey Beryozkin
Talend Community Coders
http://coders.talend.com/
Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com
