I've been using Blueprint for a few years now and a couple of years ago I was
kicking the tires on DS and CDI. At the time there was a vigorous debate
about the future of OSGi and the place for Blueprint, DS and CDI. I've been
developing in Fuse primarily so was stuck with Karaf 2.x and the standar
Hi Ranx,
Blueprint is still maintained and supported by Karaf. There are pros and
cons for blueprint.
DS/SCR is a nice alternative.
At the end of the day, behind the hood, it's OSGi services, that you can
use with "native" OSGi approach.
We don't necessary agree with all OSGi alliance dire
Note that there is now an OSGI CDI spec with the reference implementation part
of Apache Aries. Whatever the technical tradeoffs between this and the PAX CDI
one I suspect the latter is not going to be vigorously maintained.
While blueprint certainly works I think that using it is likely to dis
Hi,
I'm agree with JB, this the big force of Karaf is to provide all the
possibilities for the users to test and make the right choice for their
own usages.
Karaf is based on OSGi but it doesn't say that users have to use OSGi :)
Keep tune for Winegrower, it will be very nice!
regards,
Françoi
JB,
Thanks for the feedback. Blueprint itself was never a big issue for me or my
clients so much as Blueprint/Camel. I’m not sure how big a deal Camel is in
the Karaf world writ large. A lot of my concerns are about TDD and also
making sure that standards and libraries adopted don’t become deprecat
David,
Thanks! I was unaware of the Apache Aries CDI as separate from the PAX CDI.
It’s exactly that sort of dead end I’d like to avoid. I noted too that
Liferay is doing a clean room implementation of their own version of OSGi
CDI but it seems to focus on bridging a J2EE and OSGi world which is al
François
I'm looking forward to "winegrower". So tantalizing. I guess if you've got
the Cellar you need some wine to put in it.
You're right, the beauty of Karaf/Felix is that you have all these options.
It's also a downside and it becomes even more of a downside when you start
throwing technolog
David,
Thanks again. I just looked at the Aries and PAX CDI.
https://github.com/gnodet/aries-cdi
https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.cdi
Obviously Guillaume is involved on both but it doesn't look like anything
was done on the Aries version for the past couple of years. I wonder if he
just tr
Hi Ranx,
I haven’t been actively involved in osgi for a couple of years, and things
aren’t quite where I thought. The enterprise R7 spec is apparently not yet
released, but there’s been at least one public draft including the cdi
integration spec:
https://osgi.org/download/osgi.enterprise-7.0.
Hi,
I agree for the examples and that's why we started add some examples in
the distribution :
https://github.com/apache/karaf/tree/master/examples
We are trying to add more examples in each new releases and be focused
on the users request in the mailing list.
Karaf and Camel are community proj
David,
Thanks, I appreciate the insights. I suspect from looking at the two
projects Guillaume was working on he simply moved it to PAX after his
initial cut at it but I may be wrong.
--
Sent from: http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Karaf-User-f930749.html
François,
I've looked at the examples and like them quite a bit. An obvious problem
for samples and documentation across a lot of this whether it is OSGi or
Camel is that most focus on obvious problems of how the mechanics work.
Larger integration and testing patterns tend to get short shrift.
H
It appears that Fuse 7 is supporting PAX CDI and that changes my assessment
of all this.
The OSGi Alliance has been positively glacial in approving the specification
(six years now) but that appears to be about to change. Hopefully they adopt
Guillaume's implementation as the reference standard a
As I noted previously the OSGI CDI reference implementation is at Apache Aries
and I believe differs significantly from Guillaume’s implementation in
philosophy.
David Jencks
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 20, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Ranx wrote:
>
> It appears that Fuse 7 is supporting PAX CDI and
If you really want to pick a CDI implementation to use in Karaf, I would
advise to look at the CDI RI from Aries.
It appears that the spec has evolved in the right direction, also it's
still very limited in terms of beans lifecycle.
The main problem imho is that the spec does not allow tying the li
There is a whole lot of assumptions going on here and before conjecture
wins the day I want to make some corrections:
- OSGi CDI Integration is *completely reactive to both Services and
Configuration*. See the spec [1]
- *Aries CDI is the RI and is very active*. See the commit history [2]
- Suppor
Thanks. I'll give it a look.
Unfortunately, as a consultant I'm not at liberty to choose the
implementation I use. My clients are, by and large, using Red Hat Fuse.
Currently Fuse 7 is preloaded with PAX CDI but it sounds as if that may not
remain the same. There have been a number to technology
Raymond,
Thanks for the information. I was probably unaware of the RI because it
isn't listed on the Aries website and the only annotations I was aware of
from there were the Blueprint annotations. Also, PAX CDI has been installed
in Fuse for some time now although in the 6.x version (Karaf 2.x) i
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:23 AM Ranx wrote:
> Raymond,
>
> Thanks for the information. I was probably unaware of the RI because it
> isn't listed on the Aries website
Good point! So I did some updates to the main page [1]. I will try to make
further updates to other pages as time permits.
[1]
I didn't see this thread until now, but just wanted to add that I use
blueprint with Camel all the time very successfully. There were a few
hiccups that were resolved around injecting configurations into the tests
for a specific PID, but in the testing stuff was put together nicely as
well.
I'd be
The whole camel blueprint as well as camel OSGi integration in general is
kind of shoehorned on top of a non OSGi system.
It works but it is a bit fragile.
Christian
Am Di., 4. Dez. 2018 um 16:03 Uhr schrieb Ryan Moquin <
fragility...@gmail.com>:
> I didn't see this thread until now, but just wa
Yeah, unfortunately. I hope it at least continues though, fragile or not.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018, 12:22 PM Christian Schneider The whole camel blueprint as well as camel OSGi integration in general is
> kind of shoehorned on top of a non OSGi system.
> It works but it is a bit fragile.
>
> Christia
I've written a lot of Blueprint and Blueprint Camel DSL and Blueprint
bootstrapping Camel Java DSL. But the CDI with annotations is a great way to
get the benefits of DS with automated internal wiring. The problem with
Camel for injection is that @BeanInject and @PropertyInject are Camel
specific a
I'm not sure I've had any particular problems with Camel Blueprint Test
Support except in the olden days when there were some race conditions. On
the other hand, I do know that I have a bit of "Dr. it hurts when i do
this..." relationship with CBTS where I simply won't create certain designs
becaus
24 matches
Mail list logo
