2009/9/23 Rex Wang <rwo...@gmail.com> > > > 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 do not mean to redefine the resolved status, as David said, Geronimo and OSGI's lifecycle have a slight difference, we may need to do some mapping between them Just releaize that the resolve is an internal process of the OSGI framework, no way to do a Configuration GBean start :-( > 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 >> > > -- Ivan
