Hi Jim,
as you know my vision about Tuscany architecture is still limited, but I
was wondering whether one of the JMX implementation at the Felix project
could help you. Take a look at
http://cwiki.apache.org/FELIX/mosgi-managed-osgi-framework.html
This solution is tied to adopt an OSGi container. I thought that
assemblies could be deployed as bundles, and the SCA system controlled
using an OSGi-based JMX console.
Is this approach feasible for you or you prefer to add JMX support
directly to the kernel?
francesco
Jim Marino wrote:
Over the past couple of weeks we have made progress in upgrading the
capabilities of the kernel, including starting support for a standalone
server, JMX, and SCA deployment. In addition, we have made changes that
have allowed us to support existing SCA features such as multiple
bindings for services and references as well as implement recent spec
changes such as the introduction of autowire in the assembly model.
Related to this, Jeremy has begun work to further modularize our source
tree with the goal of allowing us to release the kernel and extensions
independently.
Given this, I would like to get another release of the kernel going
shortly. Some of the features I am personally interested in seeing are:
- A standalone service with JMX support for management
- A functioning deployment implementation that corresponds to the
current SCA deployment proposal for contributing and mutating assemblies
- Closer alignment with the Java C&I specification (scopes,
conversations, autowire attributes, eager initialization semantics,
support for resources)
- Closer alignment with the assembly specification (multiple bindings
per service/reference, property overrides)
- Improved extension support, including classloader isolation (i.e. use
of multiparent classloading)
Another key goal I would like to see is a focus on hardening the kernel.
We still have a number of critical code paths which are fragile and have
little to no test coverage.
I would ideally like to get a kernel release out by the end of the month
that extension developers can use which is fairly stable and robust.
Depending on the outcome of changes under consideration by the SCA
collaboration, this would put us in a fairly good position to support a
significant number of features by the time the specifications are
released in their "1.0" form.
Thoughts?
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
