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, François Papon fpa...@apache.org Le 17/10/2018 à 23:49, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit : > 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 directions. Karaf is > really focus on dev + devops, and specifications should be a way to > provide new features in an easy way more than a constraint. > > We are working on a prototype right now (named winegrower) to provide > a new experience for developer. > > Regards > JB > > On 17/10/2018 21:42, Ranx 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 >>
