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 distract from the benefits of an OSGI service model; IMO there’s a big impedance mismatch between the mental models of blueprint and OSGI services making it hard to smoothly flow into creating well designed services. I have no experience or opinion about the CDI approaches. David Jencks > On Oct 17, 2018, at 12:42 PM, Ranx <r...@enjekt.org> wrote: > > 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 standard > libraries. However, I'm going to be doing a Fuse 7 prototype and generating > recommendations for a new clean room implementation and some porting of > older bundles as well. > > From what I could tell the use of CDI with DS under the covers was > attempting to solve three problems - (1) it would use the better service > mechanics of DS, (2) provide the dependency injection wire up that DS lacks, > and (3) use a standard paradigm that J2EE developers would find comfortable. > > PAX CDI was kicking off at the time and a 1.0 final was released in February > of this year (2018). But I don't see a lot of activity. > https://ops4j1.jira.com/projects/PAXCDI/issues/PAXCDI-197?filter=allopenissues > > It's well and fine that all those technologies can pay together in the same > sandbox but I go into clients all the time and a lot of what I do is mentor > them on how to use the stack and especially how to test their code during > development. Teaching different modalities isn't realistic. > > Normally that would militate toward adopting Blueprint and the Karaf/PAX > team have done good work at keeping it moving forward. But it doesn't appear > to be tied into much of what is happening with the OSGi alliance and their > directions. > > Are the trade offs today the same as when that discussion happened here in > 2016 or have things shifted since then. > > Any insights would be helpful. > > Thanks, > Ranx > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Karaf-User-f930749.html
