Charles,
While I can understand your desire to unify things, sometimes it just
does not make sense and this is one of those times. The whole philosophy
behind iPOJO is to embrace the dynamism and the service model inherent
in OSGi and try to make it as easy as possible to develop with them.
-> richard
On 7/2/09 7:51 AM, Charles Moulliard wrote:
Neil,
Thanks for the clarification. The idea that I promote behind my reply is not
at all to debate which approach is better than the other but instead to make
aware the opensource community that too much frameworks kill our
goals/intents. The merit of EJB specification has been to become a standard
used by all the actors (developer, architect, manufacturer of application
server, ...) even if, from a technical point of view, EJB 1 and 2 have
increased development life cycle. This is why Spring has taken the lead by
promoting an easiest way to design enterprise solutions.
For the future of the OSGI development based on SOA architecture or Service
Component, we need to have strong/federating standards who will simplify our
way to design/develop enterprise solutions. From my point of view, Blueprint
is one of them and it should be interesting that existing frameworks align
with this specification (like Spring DM will do soon).
Regards,
Charles Moulliard
Senior Enterprise Architect
Apache Camel Committer
*****************************
blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Neil Bartlett<[email protected]> wrote:
Charles,
Of course iPOJO and Blueprint are compatible!
Services exported by a bundle using iPOJO can be imported by a bundle
using Blueprint, and vice versa. All of these component models --
iPOJO, Blueprint, DS, Spring-DM, Peaberry etc -- interoperate
perfectly at the level of OSGi services. Of course they are all
implemented in different ways internally, but there is absolutely no
need to force every component model to implement Blueprint.
Regards
Neil
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Charles Moulliard<[email protected]>
wrote:
If iPojo and Blueprint are not compatible. What can we do !
This kind of situation is always frustrating for developers/designers and
architects because choice must be done between competitors (Spring DM,
Blueprint, iPojo, SCA, ...).
Our time is precious. This is why having standards in OSG is really
important like it is in Java World for J2EE specifications. I'm pretty
sure
that this kind of situation will not help to promote OSGI as alternative
to
classical development done on J2EE application servers like Websphere,
...
Regards,
Charles Moulliard
Senior Enterprise Architect
Apache Camel Committer
*****************************
blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Guillaume Nodet<[email protected]>
wrote:
When I first started the blueprint implementation, the idea was to use
iPojo and implement blueprint on top of it.
Unfortunately, iPojo and blueprint have very different ways of solving
the same problems, and it seems quite impossible to easily reconcile
those.
So, I don't think there will be any relationship between iPojo and
blueprint.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:19, Charles Moulliard<[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi,
What are the future plans of iPojo regarding to OSGI specification (=
RFC
124 ) called Blueprint ? Will iPojo be migrated to be used as
blueprint
services or iPojo will continue to live without integration with
blueprint ?
Regards,
Charles Moulliard
Senior Enterprise Architect
Apache Camel Committer
*****************************
blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
