Matt,

If you're trying to create & lookup the beans in spring context, I think
you'll have to create separate spring application context. It is not the
same as the stuff declared in blueprint.xml. They just look similar because
of its spring/springdm heritage.

It is probably cleaner anyway, as you can specify the required mock objects
within your spring test contexts.


On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Matt Madhavan <[email protected]>wrote:

> Hi Kc,
> I would like to do Unit Testing of the bundles before the Integration
> testing. I know how to do that if I'm using SpringDM. I can separate the
> bean creation and service declaration in separate spring.xml files and use
> the bean file to do unit testing.
>
> There has to be a way to create just the beans using blueprint.xml and
> lookup the beans based on the bean name. Any ideas?
>
> Thanks
> Matt
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:25 AM, KcTang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi, afaik, that's not possible. They don't share same schema.
>>
>> What is your use case? Is it for unit testing only?
>> On 24 Mar 2011 01:19, "Matt Madhavan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> > I would like to know how I can use the blueprint.xml to define beans (No
>> > Services) and instantiate beans and look them up like I would normally
>> do
>> > using plain spring.xml configuration?
>> >
>> > For instance I would like to do something similar (Spring) below using
>> > BluePrint(Aries) instead Spring,
>> >
>> > @RunWith(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.class)
>> > @ContextConfiguration(locations =
>> >
>> {"classpath:/com/hcsc/itf/osgi/samples/bp_ojpa_ctw_sdm/datasource/DataSourceTest-context.xml"})
>> >
>> >
>> > Or loading Spring Application Context
>> > --------------------------
>> > ClassPathApplicationContext ctx = new ClassPathApplicationContext
>> > ("springbeans.xml")
>> >
>> > Only in my case I would like to load my beans from bluepring.xml (With
>> no
>> > services defined - only regular beans).
>> >
>> > Any help would be appreciated.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance!
>> >
>> > Matt
>>
>
>

Reply via email to