You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@karaf.apache.org by Ranx <ra...@enjekt.org> on 2018/11/20 18:14:24 UTC
Re: Blueprint, DS and CDI State of the Art...
It appears that Fuse 7 is supporting PAX CDI and that changes my assessment
of all this.
The OSGi Alliance has been positively glacial in approving the specification
(six years now) but that appears to be about to change. Hopefully they adopt
Guillaume's implementation as the reference standard and when the final spec
drops a few tweaks are made to PAX CDI for final.
I'm not sure why it has taken so long and having CDI with DS for service
annotation while also being able to use the standard annotations for
internal bundle wiring is long past due.
That Red Hat is supporting CDI means I don't have to worry about
recommending it to my clients. That it appears that the OSGi Alliance is
about to sign off on the standard is even more exciting.
--
Sent from: http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Karaf-User-f930749.html
Re: Blueprint, DS and CDI State of the Art...
Posted by Ranx <ra...@enjekt.org>.
Thanks. I'll give it a look.
Unfortunately, as a consultant I'm not at liberty to choose the
implementation I use. My clients are, by and large, using Red Hat Fuse.
Currently Fuse 7 is preloaded with PAX CDI but it sounds as if that may not
remain the same. There have been a number to technology swaps in Fuse which
I didn't agree with but that's out of my control.
Obviously there has to be some mechanic for the OSGi service dynamics or it
would be unusable.
--
Sent from: http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Karaf-User-f930749.html
Re: Blueprint, DS and CDI State of the Art...
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>.
If you really want to pick a CDI implementation to use in Karaf, I would
advise to look at the CDI RI from Aries.
It appears that the spec has evolved in the right direction, also it's
still very limited in terms of beans lifecycle.
The main problem imho is that the spec does not allow tying the lifecyle of
a CDI bean to the lifecycle of its dependencies. That's imho, the best way
to deal with the dynamism of the OSGi service registry.
Guillaume
Le mar. 20 nov. 2018 à 20:42, David Jencks <da...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> As I noted previously the OSGI CDI reference implementation is at Apache
> Aries and I believe differs significantly from Guillaume’s implementation
> in philosophy.
>
> David Jencks
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 20, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Ranx <ra...@enjekt.org> wrote:
> >
> > It appears that Fuse 7 is supporting PAX CDI and that changes my
> assessment
> > of all this.
> >
> > The OSGi Alliance has been positively glacial in approving the
> specification
> > (six years now) but that appears to be about to change. Hopefully they
> adopt
> > Guillaume's implementation as the reference standard and when the final
> spec
> > drops a few tweaks are made to PAX CDI for final.
> >
> > I'm not sure why it has taken so long and having CDI with DS for service
> > annotation while also being able to use the standard annotations for
> > internal bundle wiring is long past due.
> >
> > That Red Hat is supporting CDI means I don't have to worry about
> > recommending it to my clients. That it appears that the OSGi Alliance is
> > about to sign off on the standard is even more exciting.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from: http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Karaf-User-f930749.html
>
--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
Re: Blueprint, DS and CDI State of the Art...
Posted by David Jencks <da...@gmail.com>.
As I noted previously the OSGI CDI reference implementation is at Apache Aries and I believe differs significantly from Guillaume’s implementation in philosophy.
David Jencks
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 20, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Ranx <ra...@enjekt.org> wrote:
>
> It appears that Fuse 7 is supporting PAX CDI and that changes my assessment
> of all this.
>
> The OSGi Alliance has been positively glacial in approving the specification
> (six years now) but that appears to be about to change. Hopefully they adopt
> Guillaume's implementation as the reference standard and when the final spec
> drops a few tweaks are made to PAX CDI for final.
>
> I'm not sure why it has taken so long and having CDI with DS for service
> annotation while also being able to use the standard annotations for
> internal bundle wiring is long past due.
>
> That Red Hat is supporting CDI means I don't have to worry about
> recommending it to my clients. That it appears that the OSGi Alliance is
> about to sign off on the standard is even more exciting.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Karaf-User-f930749.html