I'd like to see an example in action before I commit myself but so
far I don't see any problems with this. I assume you have already or
will soon verify this doesn't cause problems with the tck :-)
I wonder if a package name with "osgi" in it somewhere would be more
appropriate?
There are some specs (jacc for instance) that use a system property
to figure out what to create. I've always thought this was a less
than brilliant idea and wonder if we can do something similar for
those. I also wonder if there is a way to generalize the osgi method
so it might work in some non-osgi environments. I'm looking forward
to seeing what you have in mind.
thanks
david jencks
On Apr 16, 2008, at 8:20 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
In the past months, I've been working on making the specs jars from
Geronimo working in an OSGi environment.
All these jars have been published and work great :-)
However, lots of these spec jars define factories (stax, saaj for
example) that use the META-INF/services/ discovery mechanism to
find an implementation of the spec and load it. This mechanism
does not fit well in OSGi (really, it does not), mainly because
usually, the classloader containing the spec jar will not contain
the implementation.
I'd like to work on these spec jars so that they will contain an
OSGi BundleActivator that would change the behavior of these
factories when deployed in an OSGi environment (without changing
the behavior in other case). The idea is that the activator would
scan OSGi bundles when they are started to find META-INF/services
and populate a map that would be used by the factory when creating
an object before using the standard mechanism.
The only real difference compared to what we currently have would
be the addition of a package named org.apache.geronimo.specs.stax
(for example) that would contain the needed classes (i suppose two
classes), and the modification of the factories to delegate to one
of these class before using the standard behavior (the class would
do nothing if not deployed in an OSGi environment).
Has anyone any objection with such an enhancement in the specs jar ?
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
