You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@aries.apache.org by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> on 2010/04/16 19:26:12 UTC
Should this work in blueprint?
I recently came across something that I thought should work but didn't:
<blueprint xmlns="http://www.osgi.org/xmlns/blueprint/v1.0.0">
<bean class="org.apache.yoko.osgi.locator.ServiceBean"
activation="eager"
init-method="start"
destroy-method="stop">
<argument>
<reference interface="org.apache.yoko.osgi.locator.Register" component-name="yokoRegistryBean"/>
</argument>
</bean>
...
The error looked to me as if it was complaining that some object constructed for the reference was not of the type needed for the constructor argument, but I didn't investigate in detail.
This, however, did work:
<blueprint xmlns="http://www.osgi.org/xmlns/blueprint/v1.0.0">
<reference id="register" interface="org.apache.yoko.osgi.locator.Register" component-name="yokoRegistryBean"/>
<bean class="org.apache.yoko.osgi.locator.ServiceBean"
activation="eager"
init-method="start"
destroy-method="stop">
<argument>
<ref component-id="register"/>
</argument>
</bean>
...
Is this expected behavior or a bug?
thanks
david jencks
Re: Should this work in blueprint?
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-288
I agree with your guess as to the cause :-)
Not sure if I'll get to fixing it before the next rc.....
thanks
david jencks
On Apr 16, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Valentin Mahrwald wrote:
> Looks like a bug to me. My bet would be there is an additional layer of say Reference.ServiceProxyWrapper that we don't take off :(
>
> On 16 Apr 2010, at 18:26, David Jencks wrote:
>
>> I recently came across something that I thought should work but didn't:
>>
>> <blueprint xmlns="http://www.osgi.org/xmlns/blueprint/v1.0.0">
>>
>> <bean class="org.apache.yoko.osgi.locator.ServiceBean"
>> activation="eager"
>> init-method="start"
>> destroy-method="stop">
>> <argument>
>> <reference interface="org.apache.yoko.osgi.locator.Register" component-name="yokoRegistryBean"/>
>> </argument>
>> </bean>
>> ...
>>
>> The error looked to me as if it was complaining that some object constructed for the reference was not of the type needed for the constructor argument, but I didn't investigate in detail.
>>
>> This, however, did work:
>>
>>
>> <blueprint xmlns="http://www.osgi.org/xmlns/blueprint/v1.0.0">
>>
>> <reference id="register" interface="org.apache.yoko.osgi.locator.Register" component-name="yokoRegistryBean"/>
>>
>> <bean class="org.apache.yoko.osgi.locator.ServiceBean"
>> activation="eager"
>> init-method="start"
>> destroy-method="stop">
>> <argument>
>> <ref component-id="register"/>
>> </argument>
>> </bean>
>> ...
>>
>> Is this expected behavior or a bug?
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>
Re: Should this work in blueprint?
Posted by Valentin Mahrwald <vm...@googlemail.com>.
Looks like a bug to me. My bet would be there is an additional layer
of say Reference.ServiceProxyWrapper that we don't take off :(
On 16 Apr 2010, at 18:26, David Jencks wrote:
> I recently came across something that I thought should work but
> didn't:
>
> <blueprint xmlns="http://www.osgi.org/xmlns/blueprint/v1.0.0">
>
> <bean class="org.apache.yoko.osgi.locator.ServiceBean"
> activation="eager"
> init-method="start"
> destroy-method="stop">
> <argument>
> <reference
> interface="org.apache.yoko.osgi.locator.Register" component-
> name="yokoRegistryBean"/>
> </argument>
> </bean>
> ...
>
> The error looked to me as if it was complaining that some object
> constructed for the reference was not of the type needed for the
> constructor argument, but I didn't investigate in detail.
>
> This, however, did work:
>
>
> <blueprint xmlns="http://www.osgi.org/xmlns/blueprint/v1.0.0">
>
> <reference id="register"
> interface="org.apache.yoko.osgi.locator.Register" component-
> name="yokoRegistryBean"/>
>
> <bean class="org.apache.yoko.osgi.locator.ServiceBean"
> activation="eager"
> init-method="start"
> destroy-method="stop">
> <argument>
> <ref component-id="register"/>
> </argument>
> </bean>
> ...
>
> Is this expected behavior or a bug?
>
> thanks
> david jencks