You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@aries.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> on 2014/01/17 17:39:26 UTC
Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
Hi,
we would like to run the subsystems implementation without Blueprint. It's
not a matter whether Blueprint is good or not and I don't want to start a
thread about that :). The main reason are a) we want to have Subsystems
running as soon as possible and with as less dependencies as possible b) we
can't ship Blueprint with our products (and again this decision is not
caused by technical reasons)
Now if I look correctly, the only bundles requiring Blueprint are the
application.utils and application.modeller. Naive looking it should be
straight forward to migrate these to use an Activator and register the
services by hand.
My question is now, if I would provide the patches, is there interest in
applying them?
Regards
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Great :)
I've created a first one:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-1149
If this goes well, I'll tackle the other one :)
Regards
Carsten
2014/1/17 David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>
> Hi Carsten,
>
> I think that makes sense. Whether you use Blueprint, DS, OSGi/CDI or
> whatever else as a component framework is a little bit a matter of
> taste. I agree that it would be good to decouple the subsystems
> implementation from the component framework so that people can make
> that choice independently...
>
> I'm sure that if you provide patches they will be looked at :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
> On 17 January 2014 16:39, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > we would like to run the subsystems implementation without Blueprint.
> It's
> > not a matter whether Blueprint is good or not and I don't want to start a
> > thread about that :). The main reason are a) we want to have Subsystems
> > running as soon as possible and with as less dependencies as possible b)
> we
> > can't ship Blueprint with our products (and again this decision is not
> > caused by technical reasons)
> >
> > Now if I look correctly, the only bundles requiring Blueprint are the
> > application.utils and application.modeller. Naive looking it should be
> > straight forward to migrate these to use an Activator and register the
> > services by hand.
> >
> > My question is now, if I would provide the patches, is there interest in
> > applying them?
> >
> > Regards
> > Carsten
> > --
> > Carsten Ziegeler
> > cziegeler@apache.org
>
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
Hi Carsten,
I think that makes sense. Whether you use Blueprint, DS, OSGi/CDI or
whatever else as a component framework is a little bit a matter of
taste. I agree that it would be good to decouple the subsystems
implementation from the component framework so that people can make
that choice independently...
I'm sure that if you provide patches they will be looked at :)
Cheers,
David
On 17 January 2014 16:39, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we would like to run the subsystems implementation without Blueprint. It's
> not a matter whether Blueprint is good or not and I don't want to start a
> thread about that :). The main reason are a) we want to have Subsystems
> running as soon as possible and with as less dependencies as possible b) we
> can't ship Blueprint with our products (and again this decision is not
> caused by technical reasons)
>
> Now if I look correctly, the only bundles requiring Blueprint are the
> application.utils and application.modeller. Naive looking it should be
> straight forward to migrate these to use an Activator and register the
> services by hand.
>
> My question is now, if I would provide the patches, is there interest in
> applying them?
>
> Regards
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
Posted by John W Ross <jw...@us.ibm.com>.
I, for one, would certainly have no objections to that.
John
>
> Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
>
> Hi John,
>
> yes, exactly that's what I'm thinking of - sorry for not being clear.
>
> Regards
> Carsten
>
>
> 2014/1/20 John W Ross <jw...@us.ibm.com>
>
> >
> > Hi Carsten,
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're suggesting. My understanding was you wanted to
do
> > some stuff to remove the dependency on Aries Blueprint. My response was
> > that this should have already been done by the referenced defect.
Removing
> > Aries Blueprint, however it's done, will result in the loss of service
> > dependency validation. The only way around that in the pre-R6
> > implementation would be to provide a non-aries-blueprint-based
> > implementation of the ModelledResourceManager. Is that the work you're
> > volunteering to do?
> >
> > John
> >
> > >
> > > Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
> > >
> > > Thanks for the pointer John, I didn't know that (was only using
released
> > > stuff).
> > >
> > > However :) it seems that without Blueprint the features are rather
> > limited
> > > and of course everyone wants all features - so I think this still
makes
> > > sense. Or are there any downsides especially given the fact that
someone
> > (=
> > > me) is volunteering to do the work?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Carsten
> > >
> > >
> > > 2014/1/17 John W Ross <jw...@us.ibm.com>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > The dependency has already been broken in trunk [1]. Is that not
> > > > sufficient? Also, beware the service dependency limitations this
> > introduces
> > > > as discussed in the referenced defect. These will, of course, be
> > mitigated
> > > > somewhat in OSGi RFC 201 for R6 with support for the osgi.service
> > namespace
> > > > in Require/Provide-Capability.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-952?
> > >
> >
> >
>
focusedCommentId=13703354&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-
> >
> > > tabpanel#comment-13703354
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > we would like to run the subsystems implementation without
Blueprint.
> > > > It's
> > > > > not a matter whether Blueprint is good or not and I don't want to
> > start a
> > > > > thread about that :). The main reason are a) we want to have
> > Subsystems
> > > > > running as soon as possible and with as less dependencies as
possible
> > b)
> > > > we
> > > > > can't ship Blueprint with our products (and again this decision
is
> > not
> > > > > caused by technical reasons)
> > > > >
> > > > > Now if I look correctly, the only bundles requiring Blueprint are
the
> > > > > application.utils and application.modeller. Naive looking it
should
> > be
> > > > > straight forward to migrate these to use an Activator and
register
> > the
> > > > > services by hand.
> > > > >
> > > > > My question is now, if I would provide the patches, is there
interest
> > in
> > > > > applying them?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Carsten
> > > > > --
> > > > > Carsten Ziegeler
> > > > > cziegeler@apache.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carsten Ziegeler
> > > cziegeler@apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Hi John,
yes, exactly that's what I'm thinking of - sorry for not being clear.
Regards
Carsten
2014/1/20 John W Ross <jw...@us.ibm.com>
>
> Hi Carsten,
>
> I'm not sure what you're suggesting. My understanding was you wanted to do
> some stuff to remove the dependency on Aries Blueprint. My response was
> that this should have already been done by the referenced defect. Removing
> Aries Blueprint, however it's done, will result in the loss of service
> dependency validation. The only way around that in the pre-R6
> implementation would be to provide a non-aries-blueprint-based
> implementation of the ModelledResourceManager. Is that the work you're
> volunteering to do?
>
> John
>
> >
> > Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
> >
> > Thanks for the pointer John, I didn't know that (was only using released
> > stuff).
> >
> > However :) it seems that without Blueprint the features are rather
> limited
> > and of course everyone wants all features - so I think this still makes
> > sense. Or are there any downsides especially given the fact that someone
> (=
> > me) is volunteering to do the work?
> >
> > Regards
> > Carsten
> >
> >
> > 2014/1/17 John W Ross <jw...@us.ibm.com>
> >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The dependency has already been broken in trunk [1]. Is that not
> > > sufficient? Also, beware the service dependency limitations this
> introduces
> > > as discussed in the referenced defect. These will, of course, be
> mitigated
> > > somewhat in OSGi RFC 201 for R6 with support for the osgi.service
> namespace
> > > in Require/Provide-Capability.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-952?
> >
>
> focusedCommentId=13703354&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-
>
> > tabpanel#comment-13703354
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > we would like to run the subsystems implementation without Blueprint.
> > > It's
> > > > not a matter whether Blueprint is good or not and I don't want to
> start a
> > > > thread about that :). The main reason are a) we want to have
> Subsystems
> > > > running as soon as possible and with as less dependencies as possible
> b)
> > > we
> > > > can't ship Blueprint with our products (and again this decision is
> not
> > > > caused by technical reasons)
> > > >
> > > > Now if I look correctly, the only bundles requiring Blueprint are the
> > > > application.utils and application.modeller. Naive looking it should
> be
> > > > straight forward to migrate these to use an Activator and register
> the
> > > > services by hand.
> > > >
> > > > My question is now, if I would provide the patches, is there interest
> in
> > > > applying them?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Carsten
> > > > --
> > > > Carsten Ziegeler
> > > > cziegeler@apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carsten Ziegeler
> > cziegeler@apache.org
>
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
Posted by John W Ross <jw...@us.ibm.com>.
Hi Carsten,
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. My understanding was you wanted to do
some stuff to remove the dependency on Aries Blueprint. My response was
that this should have already been done by the referenced defect. Removing
Aries Blueprint, however it's done, will result in the loss of service
dependency validation. The only way around that in the pre-R6
implementation would be to provide a non-aries-blueprint-based
implementation of the ModelledResourceManager. Is that the work you're
volunteering to do?
John
>
> Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
>
> Thanks for the pointer John, I didn't know that (was only using released
> stuff).
>
> However :) it seems that without Blueprint the features are rather
limited
> and of course everyone wants all features - so I think this still makes
> sense. Or are there any downsides especially given the fact that someone
(=
> me) is volunteering to do the work?
>
> Regards
> Carsten
>
>
> 2014/1/17 John W Ross <jw...@us.ibm.com>
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The dependency has already been broken in trunk [1]. Is that not
> > sufficient? Also, beware the service dependency limitations this
introduces
> > as discussed in the referenced defect. These will, of course, be
mitigated
> > somewhat in OSGi RFC 201 for R6 with support for the osgi.service
namespace
> > in Require/Provide-Capability.
> >
> > John
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-952?
>
focusedCommentId=13703354&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-
> tabpanel#comment-13703354
> >
> > >
> > > Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > we would like to run the subsystems implementation without Blueprint.
> > It's
> > > not a matter whether Blueprint is good or not and I don't want to
start a
> > > thread about that :). The main reason are a) we want to have
Subsystems
> > > running as soon as possible and with as less dependencies as possible
b)
> > we
> > > can't ship Blueprint with our products (and again this decision is
not
> > > caused by technical reasons)
> > >
> > > Now if I look correctly, the only bundles requiring Blueprint are the
> > > application.utils and application.modeller. Naive looking it should
be
> > > straight forward to migrate these to use an Activator and register
the
> > > services by hand.
> > >
> > > My question is now, if I would provide the patches, is there interest
in
> > > applying them?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Carsten
> > > --
> > > Carsten Ziegeler
> > > cziegeler@apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Thanks for the pointer John, I didn't know that (was only using released
stuff).
However :) it seems that without Blueprint the features are rather limited
and of course everyone wants all features - so I think this still makes
sense. Or are there any downsides especially given the fact that someone (=
me) is volunteering to do the work?
Regards
Carsten
2014/1/17 John W Ross <jw...@us.ibm.com>
>
> Hi,
>
> The dependency has already been broken in trunk [1]. Is that not
> sufficient? Also, beware the service dependency limitations this introduces
> as discussed in the referenced defect. These will, of course, be mitigated
> somewhat in OSGi RFC 201 for R6 with support for the osgi.service namespace
> in Require/Provide-Capability.
>
> John
>
> [1]
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-952?focusedCommentId=13703354&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13703354
>
> >
> > Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > we would like to run the subsystems implementation without Blueprint.
> It's
> > not a matter whether Blueprint is good or not and I don't want to start a
> > thread about that :). The main reason are a) we want to have Subsystems
> > running as soon as possible and with as less dependencies as possible b)
> we
> > can't ship Blueprint with our products (and again this decision is not
> > caused by technical reasons)
> >
> > Now if I look correctly, the only bundles requiring Blueprint are the
> > application.utils and application.modeller. Naive looking it should be
> > straight forward to migrate these to use an Activator and register the
> > services by hand.
> >
> > My question is now, if I would provide the patches, is there interest in
> > applying them?
> >
> > Regards
> > Carsten
> > --
> > Carsten Ziegeler
> > cziegeler@apache.org
>
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
Posted by John W Ross <jw...@us.ibm.com>.
Hi,
The dependency has already been broken in trunk [1]. Is that not
sufficient? Also, beware the service dependency limitations this introduces
as discussed in the referenced defect. These will, of course, be mitigated
somewhat in OSGi RFC 201 for R6 with support for the osgi.service namespace
in Require/Provide-Capability.
John
[1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-952?focusedCommentId=13703354&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13703354
>
> Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
>
> Hi,
>
> we would like to run the subsystems implementation without Blueprint.
It's
> not a matter whether Blueprint is good or not and I don't want to start a
> thread about that :). The main reason are a) we want to have Subsystems
> running as soon as possible and with as less dependencies as possible b)
we
> can't ship Blueprint with our products (and again this decision is not
> caused by technical reasons)
>
> Now if I look correctly, the only bundles requiring Blueprint are the
> application.utils and application.modeller. Naive looking it should be
> straight forward to migrate these to use an Activator and register the
> services by hand.
>
> My question is now, if I would provide the patches, is there interest in
> applying them?
>
> Regards
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org