2009/9/23 Ivan <xhh...@gmail.com> > > > 2009/9/23 David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com> > >> >> On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:50 PM, Ivan wrote: >> >> After reading some code changes of the geronimo-kenel in the sanbox, I >> found that we keep the Geronimo kenel as an OSGI service, and each >> Configuration ( or a bundle) will search it and start the configuration as >> we do in the past while starting. >> >> >> There's a difference in lifecycles between osgi bundles and geronimo >> configurations. >> >> OSGI: >> bundles can be installed, in which case the classes are not available, or >> started, in which case the classes are all available and the bundle >> activator has been started. AFAICT there is no other built in >> "no-really-start-it" state beyond "started". There might be more >> less-started states I'm not aware of. >> >> Geronimo: >> A Configuration is a gbean. You can't get much usefaul data out of it >> until its started. Once it is started the classes are available and you can >> find out what services (gbeans) are in the configuration and look at their >> attributes. There's a further state of "all gbeans started". The >> configuration manager treats these states as "loaded" and "started" >> >> So far it seems to work to do something similar in the osgi environment >> but it doesn't really fit very well yet. I'm not sure where we will end up >> with this. >> >> >> > I have not considered the detailed implmentation, by intuition, the > Configuration in the old Geronimo Arch is a bundle in OSGI, while starting > the bundle, the bundleActivator will start all the gbean defintions it has. > I know that Configuration is only a gbean, even if it is in running state, > it does not mean that all the sub gbeans are in the running state, maybe, as > Guillanume said, we could think that the resolved state means that the > Configuration GBean itself has been successfully in the running state. > >> >> > The "Installed/Resolved/Started" is the states of a bundle, not a specific java bean. You can not re-define what "resolved" mean in your design.
> I have a feeling that, if we do that, Geronimo is still a part of OSGI env, >> could we make the Geronimo is an OSGI env? >> >> >> I don't understand what you are asking here. In the sandbox, geronimo >> plugins are running in an osgi enviroment, and all the classes are loaded >> from osgi bundles. Could you explain more what you are asking about? >> >> > > What I mean is that, currently, Geronimo kernel is running in the OSGI > environment, and all those GBeans are running in the kernel. I would like > to see that the OSGI is Geronimo kernel. As you said in the comments below, > we might not need a kernel at all :-) > > Yes. I hope so. -Rex > Could we publish GBeans as OSGI service via a ConfigurationActivator, or >> though a GBean-OSGI adapter ? >> >> >> I'm pretty sure we could, but I'd like to get more stuff working before we >> decide if its a good idea. IIUC blueprint doesn't publish every blueprint >> bean as an osgi service, but only ones you configure to be published. I >> suspect we may want to, similarly, only publish some gbeans as osgi >> services. >> >> My current approach is to try to modify the existing geronimo architecture >> relatively little where possible to get it to run in osgi, respecting osgi >> architecture. So, I am trying to get stuff working with the kernel as an >> osgi service, get the deployers working, etc etc. I think after we have >> done this we will have a much better idea what other work we want to try. >> For instance, we might not need a kernel at all: possibly gbeans can just >> be osgi services with a few extra attributes. >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >> >> Thanks ! >> >> 2009/9/22 Rex Wang <rwo...@gmail.com> >> >>> Yes! hope for detail sharing :-) >>> -Rex >>> >>> 2009/9/22 Jack Cai <greensi...@gmail.com> >>> >>> David, that's exciting work! >>>> >>>> It'll be great if you can share some more details. There are a few >>>> puzzles that flow around my mind - >>>> * Are we just taking OSGi framework in as another plug-in to let it >>>> host OSGi applications? Or, vice-versa, we are converting Geronimo into an >>>> OSGi application? >>> >>> * If the latter case, will GBean go away? >>>> * If yes, how much code changes are required? I'd say a lot ... >>>> >>>> -Jack >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:25 AM, David Jencks >>>> <david_jen...@yahoo.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Over the weekend I got my sandbox osgi framework to build and generate >>>>> all the plugins as osgi bundles. This involves running some of the >>>>> geronimo >>>>> server on osgi/felix inside maven. The dependency management system seems >>>>> to work OK at least for starting bundles. I also started doing a little >>>>> bit >>>>> of code cleanup. >>>>> >>>>> I think the next step will be to get the framework server running in >>>>> standalone karaf or felix. Hopefully this will be no harder than getting >>>>> it >>>>> running in embedded felix in maven. >>>>> >>>>> thanks >>>>> david jencks >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Ivan >> >> >> > > > -- > Ivan >
