hi luciano, i haven't checked it across the whole code-base.
@ tuscany: great, but as you see it's hard to know which parts of the internal-packages need to be stable, because they are used by other projects like tuscany... @ "specification" vs "wink specific": imo it's clear that e.g. org.apache.wink.server.spi contains the spi of wink and not a spec. spi (independent of the content). @ osgi: yes - osgi is always special. as far as i was told osgi had issues with java.util.ServiceLoader. if that's (still) true, it's at least possible to fix it. i'll provide a preview for LifecycleManager. based on that we can discuss further topics (e.g. a spi which allows apache tomee to use wink as jax-rs implementation). regards, gerhard 2013/8/15 Luciano Resende <[email protected]> > Is the current differentiation used to identify wink pieces that are part > of the spec versus things that are "proprietary" to Wink ? Other then that, > I don't think we are doing any kind of enforcement on the usage of those > internal methods (e.g. OSGI visibility or something), and I have used > plenty of those when doing the deep integration with Tuscany. > > But it should be ok to have a better extensibility mechanism, but then we > might have to identify what is "specification" versus "wink specific". > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Gerhard Petracek < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > hi luciano, > > > > e.g. WinkConfiguration, DeploymentConfiguration, LifecycleManager and > many > > others are in *.internal.* packages. > > technically it's possible to extend/re-use them, but they would violate a > > clean spi (interface/s in a spi package would import internal class/es). > > > > a first step would be e.g. to support custom LifecycleManager/s which can > > be implemented without internal classes. > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > 2013/8/14 Luciano Resende <[email protected]> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Gerhard Petracek < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > hi @ all, > > > > > > > > i was going to start with WINK-397. > > > > however, just adding new interfaces and using them via > > > > java.util.ServiceLoader isn't enough. > > > > a lot of central classes (as well as interfaces) are in one of the > > > > *.internal.* packages. > > > > -> to get a clean spi, we have to move some parts. > > > > if there are no objections, i'll create a first draft based on the > > wink2 > > > > branch. > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > gerhard > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you clarify a little more about what issues you are seeing and > what > > > changes you are planning ? > > > > > > -- > > > Luciano Resende > > > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975 > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > -- > Luciano Resende > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://twitter.com/lresende1975 > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ >
