I find this RFC quite worthless from a pure OSGi pov. If the only purpose is to allow existing CDI application to be ported to OSGi, that's fine. It can't and should not (imho) be used for people that target OSGi. So this is a really bad idea, but I've already said so quite a few times and proposed a solution in pax-cdi that actually solves the problem correctly in my mind: it has the exact same possibilities than DS (actually being based on the felix scr runtime) which is a well proven technology to handle OSGi dynamics. The assumption in the RFC that "CDI does not support dynamic dependencies" is just wrong and is the basis for a bad design imho : scopes can be dynamic so that beans can have a lifecycle tied to a web request or web session, so it obviously can support having beans tied to the fact its runtime dependencies are available in OSGi.
Just my 2 cents 2016-11-23 16:33 GMT+01:00 Raymond Auge <raymond.a...@liferay.com>: > Hello All, > > I've been working through implementing RFC-193 [1] and have a relatively > decent initial cut with most major details already sorted out. > > I'm wondering if Apache Aries project is interested in hosting this > implementation? > > - Ray > > [1] https://github.com/osgi/design/tree/master/rfcs/rfc0193 > > PS: If you look at RFC-193 in it's current state please note that it needs > to be re-factored so that the technical section follows from the > requirements section and I will do that in the next little while. > > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Red Hat, Open Source Integration Email: gno...@redhat.com Web: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
