I'm maintaing locally a git branch of karaf which uses blueprint instead of spring-dm. The blueprint implementation is a bit more mature / stable now and I think it would be a good idea to switch. That said, we should also provide a feature to allow spring-dm powered bundles to be deployed. There are still a couple of things to do (fix the integration tests, display back spring-dm bundles in osgi/list command if spring-dm is installed), but my branch does not seem too broken.
The only drawback I can see is that blueprint will depend on OSGi 4.2 (the current implementation has hacked the only dep on 4.2 so that it can run on the latest felix release). I've seen the api has been updated, so maybe we can depend on a felix snapshot for now. So i'd like to commit the changes I have locally to avoid doing that in the dark for too long a time. Thoughts ? On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 15:45, Guillaume Nodet<gno...@gmail.com> wrote: > The past days, I've been working on the blueprint implementation > inside Geronimo [1]. > The spec is still being written so the implementation is not really > stable and is still missing a lot of features. > However, it's already somewhat usable and as I've hacked Karaf to > start using blueprint instead of spring-dm in a branch [2]. > Tests do not even compile, but I've been able to start the console, so > I thought I would talk about it a bit. > > This raises the question whether we want to switch to blueprint > instead of spring-dm. > I think we should, and even have to, given that Spring-DM will switch > to support Blueprint at some point in the future too. Also the > blueprint spec is way better than spring-dm wrt to namespace handlers > (that are considered dependencies, so we would not have problems with > namespace handlers not being available when a bundle is started) and > classloading (i think classes loaded for namespace handlers will be > loaded from the namespace handler bundle, thus freeing the bundle to > import all the namespace handlers packages), though those areas are in > flux. > > If so, we might even want to do that before renaming the packages, as > the patch is quite big and would be quite broken after the rename imho > ... > > As for tests, we'd have to switch to something else, which could be > junit4osgi from iPojo or pax-exam for example. > > Feedback welcome. > > [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/blueprint > [2] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/sandbox/gnodet/karaf-blueprint/ > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
