You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@felix.apache.org by "ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com" <ff...@gmail.com> on 2013/09/12 07:33:51 UTC
Apache Felix and OSGI R5
Hello,
I would like to get some news about OSGI R5 implementation in Apache
Felix and Apache Felix iPojo as I just see a mail archived thread about
that here :
http://www.mail-archive.com/users@felix.apache.org/msg13638.html
Do you now have "some people" and roadmap on that subject ?
Thank you !
Re: Apache Felix and OSGI R5
Posted by "ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com" <ff...@gmail.com>.
On 12/09/2013 09:27, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 12.09.2013 um 09:10 schrieb ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com:
>
>> Yes it make sense. We will continue this investigation with iPojo
>> community.
> Excellent. You reach them here on this list, too ;-)
Yep but I was thinking on writting some JIRA issue to be more precise or
maybe we can continue with technical stuff in the user mailing list ?
Anyway I just saw another thread with same problem so I guess this is
the good one to follow ;)
>
>> Anyway good to know that OSGi API is fully backwards compatible... But
>> I'm curious : is that one of the reasons why Felix osgi version is still
>> 4.2 in the svn trunk ? Are there other points which explain that version
>> is still 4.2 in the felix trunk ?
> What specific project are you referring to ?
>
> Unlike other open-source projects, the different Apache Felix subprojects are pretty much independent of each other (or have limited dependencies like for example the main project depending on and using the framework project).
>
> So, some projects may refer to OSGi 4.2 while other refer to OSGi 5 depending on the actual requirements of these projects.
Well I'm discovering the felix trunk and I did a very quick grep on
<osgi.version> and I saw only 4.2 everywhere... And as you say I was
wrong to believe there was only 4.2 from my grep ;)
Thank you
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
>> Thank you
>>
>> On 12/09/2013 08:50, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Am 12.09.2013 um 08:33 schrieb ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com:
>>>
>>>> Thank you for this first and quick answer... Let me be more precise.
>>>>
>>>> Currently we are working on Apache Felix iPojo integration into WildFly
>>>> alpha. As you may know the WildFly alpha OSGI is based on JBoss OSGI 2.1
>>>> which is using org.osgi.core 5.0.0 and we believe this is the reason why
>>>> our integration of iPojo to WildFly is not working because as far as I
>>>> see in the svn Felix trunk pom the current OSGI version is 4.2.0...
>>> I don't think this is the problem: iPojo may be written against OSGi R4.2 but there is no reason to believe it would not run on an OSGi R5 Core compliant framework. The OSGi API is (up to now) always fully backwards compatible so that code written against old versions will work with newer versions (unless they implement OSGi API, which may require updates, but AFAICT that is not the case with iPojo)
>>>
>>> I think the iPojo community would be more than willing to help you on concrete issues you may encounter deploying WildFly with iPojo on JBoss OSGi. But you would probably have to be more specific reporting issues.
>>>
>>> Does that make sense ?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Felix
>>>
>>>> Depending on the Felix roadmap we may postpone our iPojo integration
>>>> into WildFly and use JBoss EAP 6 - which is using OSGI 4.2 through JBoss
>>>> OSGI 1.X ... But maybe some people on this list already try and succeed
>>>> this integration ?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you
>>>>
>>>> On 12/09/2013 08:20, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> What exactly do you want to know ?
>>>>>
>>>>> OSGi R5 (Core, Compendium, Enterprise) is a collection of specifications. Some are implemented in the Apache Felix project, some are not.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for OSGi R5 Core, IIRC the Felix Framework is almost complete (there has been done a gap analysis once). As for OSGi R5 Compendium and Enterprise: We have for example implementations of a number of service specifications (Log, Http, Configuration Admin, Declarative Services, Metatype, Preferences), which AFAICT are reasonably complete or even passing the OSGi R5 CT -- Configuration Admin is even the reference implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other specifications, such as JTA, JDBC, etc., are implemented by the Apache Aries project.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that help answer your question ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Felix
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 12.09.2013 um 07:33 schrieb ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to get some news about OSGI R5 implementation in Apache
>>>>>> Felix and Apache Felix iPojo as I just see a mail archived thread about
>>>>>> that here :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/users@felix.apache.org/msg13638.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you now have "some people" and roadmap on that subject ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you !
>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Apache Felix and OSGI R5
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
Hi Roland,
See here for some instructions on how I got it working at the time:
http://coderthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/04/osgi-subsystems.html
Cheers,
David
On 10 October 2013 07:32, Roland <wg...@ids.de> wrote:
> Hi,
> hey nice...This means that I can use the Aries subsystem bundles without
> Aries Application.
>
> Thanks!!!!
> Roland
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-felix.18485.x6.nabble.com/Apache-Felix-and-OSGI-R5-tp5004939p5005482.html
> Sent from the Apache Felix - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Apache Felix and OSGI R5
Posted by Roland <wg...@ids.de>.
Hi,
hey nice...This means that I can use the Aries subsystem bundles without
Aries Application.
Thanks!!!!
Roland
--
View this message in context: http://apache-felix.18485.x6.nabble.com/Apache-Felix-and-OSGI-R5-tp5004939p5005482.html
Sent from the Apache Felix - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Apache Felix and OSGI R5
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
On 9 October 2013 16:48, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
> On 10/9/13 11:23 , CLEMENT Jean-Philippe wrote:
>>
>> I guess this is not the issue. From my understanding, Aries in itself is
>> already too heavy for him and he would like the "Subsystems specification
>> and Common Namespaces Specification" implementation alone.
>
>
> Ah. I would have assumed that the implementation from Aries would be usable
> independently from anything else in Aries...if not, then I see.
When I looked at it last the implementation in Aries had the following
bundles/dependencies:
org.apache.aries.subsystem.api_1.0.0
org.apache.aries.subsystem.core_1.0.0
org.apache.aries.subsystem.obr_1.0.0
org.apache.aries.application.api_1.0.0
org.apache.aries.application.modeller_1.0.0
org.apache.aries.application.utils_1.0.0
org.apache.aries.blueprint_1.1.0
org.apache.aries.proxy_1.0.1
org.apache.aries.util_1.1.0
org.apache.felix.bundlerepository_1.6.6
org.apache.felix.resolver_1.0.0
org.eclipse.equinox.coordinator_1.1.0.v20120522-1841
org.eclipse.equinox.region_1.1.0.v20120522-1841
slf4j.api_1.7.5
slf4j.simple_1.7.5
So while it has a number of dependencies, it certainly doesn't depend
on everything in Aries...
Cheers,
David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Apache Felix and OSGI R5
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 10/9/13 11:23 , CLEMENT Jean-Philippe wrote:
> I guess this is not the issue. From my understanding, Aries in itself is already too heavy for him and he would like the "Subsystems specification and Common Namespaces Specification" implementation alone.
Ah. I would have assumed that the implementation from Aries would be
usable independently from anything else in Aries...if not, then I see.
-> richard
>
> Don't know if it makes sense...
>
> JP
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Richard S. Hall [mailto:heavy@ungoverned.org]
> Envoyé : mercredi 9 octobre 2013 14:32
> À : users@felix.apache.org
> Objet : Re: Apache Felix and OSGI R5
>
> On 10/9/13 08:07 , Roland wrote:
>> Hi,
>> thanks for your reply. I am asking because I do not want to obtain
>> additional overhead by the integration of Apache Aries (concerning the
>> starttime). I need a very lightweight implemention.
> What makes you think an implementation at Felix would be any lighter weight?
>
> This is not something integrated into the framework, it is an externally implemented piece of functionality. Just like any bundle. The weight of the implementation is purely dependent on implementation choices and not in which project it originated.
>
> -> richard
>
>> Regards
>> Roland
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://apache-felix.18485.x6.nabble.com/Apache-Felix-and-OSGI-R5-tp500
>> 4939p5005462.html Sent from the Apache Felix - Users mailing list
>> archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
RE: Apache Felix and OSGI R5
Posted by CLEMENT Jean-Philippe <je...@fr.thalesgroup.com>.
I guess this is not the issue. From my understanding, Aries in itself is already too heavy for him and he would like the "Subsystems specification and Common Namespaces Specification" implementation alone.
Don't know if it makes sense...
JP
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Richard S. Hall [mailto:heavy@ungoverned.org]
Envoyé : mercredi 9 octobre 2013 14:32
À : users@felix.apache.org
Objet : Re: Apache Felix and OSGI R5
On 10/9/13 08:07 , Roland wrote:
> Hi,
> thanks for your reply. I am asking because I do not want to obtain
> additional overhead by the integration of Apache Aries (concerning the
> starttime). I need a very lightweight implemention.
What makes you think an implementation at Felix would be any lighter weight?
This is not something integrated into the framework, it is an externally implemented piece of functionality. Just like any bundle. The weight of the implementation is purely dependent on implementation choices and not in which project it originated.
-> richard
> Regards
> Roland
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-felix.18485.x6.nabble.com/Apache-Felix-and-OSGI-R5-tp500
> 4939p5005462.html Sent from the Apache Felix - Users mailing list
> archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Apache Felix and OSGI R5
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 10/9/13 08:07 , Roland wrote:
> Hi,
> thanks for your reply. I am asking because I do not want to obtain
> additional overhead by the integration of Apache Aries (concerning the
> starttime). I need a very lightweight implemention.
What makes you think an implementation at Felix would be any lighter weight?
This is not something integrated into the framework, it is an externally
implemented piece of functionality. Just like any bundle. The weight of
the implementation is purely dependent on implementation choices and not
in which project it originated.
-> richard
> Regards
> Roland
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-felix.18485.x6.nabble.com/Apache-Felix-and-OSGI-R5-tp5004939p5005462.html
> Sent from the Apache Felix - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Apache Felix and OSGI R5
Posted by Roland <wg...@ids.de>.
Hi,
thanks for your reply. I am asking because I do not want to obtain
additional overhead by the integration of Apache Aries (concerning the
starttime). I need a very lightweight implemention.
Regards
Roland
--
View this message in context: http://apache-felix.18485.x6.nabble.com/Apache-Felix-and-OSGI-R5-tp5004939p5005462.html
Sent from the Apache Felix - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Apache Felix and OSGI R5
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
Hi Roland,
There is a Subsystems spec implementation at Apache Aries [1]. I wrote
a little getting started blog post about it a few months back [2].
Cheers,
David
[1] http://aries.apache.org
[2] http://coderthoughts.blogspot.ie/2013/04/osgi-subsystems.html
On 9 October 2013 12:37, Roland <wg...@ids.de> wrote:
> hello Felix-experts,
> I am looking for informations about whether or how much of the Subsystems
> specification and Common Namespaces Specification is implemented in Apache
> Felix.
>
> Thanks und Regards,
> Roland
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-felix.18485.x6.nabble.com/Apache-Felix-and-OSGI-R5-tp5004939p5005459.html
> Sent from the Apache Felix - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Apache Felix and OSGI R5
Posted by Roland <wg...@ids.de>.
hello Felix-experts,
I am looking for informations about whether or how much of the Subsystems
specification and Common Namespaces Specification is implemented in Apache
Felix.
Thanks und Regards,
Roland
--
View this message in context: http://apache-felix.18485.x6.nabble.com/Apache-Felix-and-OSGI-R5-tp5004939p5005459.html
Sent from the Apache Felix - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Apache Felix and OSGI R5
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Hi
Am 12.09.2013 um 09:10 schrieb ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com:
> Yes it make sense. We will continue this investigation with iPojo
> community.
Excellent. You reach them here on this list, too ;-)
>
> Anyway good to know that OSGi API is fully backwards compatible... But
> I'm curious : is that one of the reasons why Felix osgi version is still
> 4.2 in the svn trunk ? Are there other points which explain that version
> is still 4.2 in the felix trunk ?
What specific project are you referring to ?
Unlike other open-source projects, the different Apache Felix subprojects are pretty much independent of each other (or have limited dependencies like for example the main project depending on and using the framework project).
So, some projects may refer to OSGi 4.2 while other refer to OSGi 5 depending on the actual requirements of these projects.
Regards
Felix
>
> Thank you
>
> On 12/09/2013 08:50, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Am 12.09.2013 um 08:33 schrieb ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com:
>>
>>> Thank you for this first and quick answer... Let me be more precise.
>>>
>>> Currently we are working on Apache Felix iPojo integration into WildFly
>>> alpha. As you may know the WildFly alpha OSGI is based on JBoss OSGI 2.1
>>> which is using org.osgi.core 5.0.0 and we believe this is the reason why
>>> our integration of iPojo to WildFly is not working because as far as I
>>> see in the svn Felix trunk pom the current OSGI version is 4.2.0...
>> I don't think this is the problem: iPojo may be written against OSGi R4.2 but there is no reason to believe it would not run on an OSGi R5 Core compliant framework. The OSGi API is (up to now) always fully backwards compatible so that code written against old versions will work with newer versions (unless they implement OSGi API, which may require updates, but AFAICT that is not the case with iPojo)
>>
>> I think the iPojo community would be more than willing to help you on concrete issues you may encounter deploying WildFly with iPojo on JBoss OSGi. But you would probably have to be more specific reporting issues.
>>
>> Does that make sense ?
>>
>> Regards
>> Felix
>>
>>> Depending on the Felix roadmap we may postpone our iPojo integration
>>> into WildFly and use JBoss EAP 6 - which is using OSGI 4.2 through JBoss
>>> OSGI 1.X ... But maybe some people on this list already try and succeed
>>> this integration ?
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>> On 12/09/2013 08:20, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> What exactly do you want to know ?
>>>>
>>>> OSGi R5 (Core, Compendium, Enterprise) is a collection of specifications. Some are implemented in the Apache Felix project, some are not.
>>>>
>>>> As for OSGi R5 Core, IIRC the Felix Framework is almost complete (there has been done a gap analysis once). As for OSGi R5 Compendium and Enterprise: We have for example implementations of a number of service specifications (Log, Http, Configuration Admin, Declarative Services, Metatype, Preferences), which AFAICT are reasonably complete or even passing the OSGi R5 CT -- Configuration Admin is even the reference implementation.
>>>>
>>>> Other specifications, such as JTA, JDBC, etc., are implemented by the Apache Aries project.
>>>>
>>>> Does that help answer your question ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Felix
>>>>
>>>> Am 12.09.2013 um 07:33 schrieb ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to get some news about OSGI R5 implementation in Apache
>>>>> Felix and Apache Felix iPojo as I just see a mail archived thread about
>>>>> that here :
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/users@felix.apache.org/msg13638.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you now have "some people" and roadmap on that subject ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you !
>>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
Re: Apache Felix and OSGI R5
Posted by "ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com" <ff...@gmail.com>.
Yes it make sense. We will continue this investigation with iPojo
community.
Anyway good to know that OSGi API is fully backwards compatible... But
I'm curious : is that one of the reasons why Felix osgi version is still
4.2 in the svn trunk ? Are there other points which explain that version
is still 4.2 in the felix trunk ?
Thank you
On 12/09/2013 08:50, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 12.09.2013 um 08:33 schrieb ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com:
>
>> Thank you for this first and quick answer... Let me be more precise.
>>
>> Currently we are working on Apache Felix iPojo integration into WildFly
>> alpha. As you may know the WildFly alpha OSGI is based on JBoss OSGI 2.1
>> which is using org.osgi.core 5.0.0 and we believe this is the reason why
>> our integration of iPojo to WildFly is not working because as far as I
>> see in the svn Felix trunk pom the current OSGI version is 4.2.0...
> I don't think this is the problem: iPojo may be written against OSGi R4.2 but there is no reason to believe it would not run on an OSGi R5 Core compliant framework. The OSGi API is (up to now) always fully backwards compatible so that code written against old versions will work with newer versions (unless they implement OSGi API, which may require updates, but AFAICT that is not the case with iPojo)
>
> I think the iPojo community would be more than willing to help you on concrete issues you may encounter deploying WildFly with iPojo on JBoss OSGi. But you would probably have to be more specific reporting issues.
>
> Does that make sense ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
>> Depending on the Felix roadmap we may postpone our iPojo integration
>> into WildFly and use JBoss EAP 6 - which is using OSGI 4.2 through JBoss
>> OSGI 1.X ... But maybe some people on this list already try and succeed
>> this integration ?
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> On 12/09/2013 08:20, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> What exactly do you want to know ?
>>>
>>> OSGi R5 (Core, Compendium, Enterprise) is a collection of specifications. Some are implemented in the Apache Felix project, some are not.
>>>
>>> As for OSGi R5 Core, IIRC the Felix Framework is almost complete (there has been done a gap analysis once). As for OSGi R5 Compendium and Enterprise: We have for example implementations of a number of service specifications (Log, Http, Configuration Admin, Declarative Services, Metatype, Preferences), which AFAICT are reasonably complete or even passing the OSGi R5 CT -- Configuration Admin is even the reference implementation.
>>>
>>> Other specifications, such as JTA, JDBC, etc., are implemented by the Apache Aries project.
>>>
>>> Does that help answer your question ?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Felix
>>>
>>> Am 12.09.2013 um 07:33 schrieb ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to get some news about OSGI R5 implementation in Apache
>>>> Felix and Apache Felix iPojo as I just see a mail archived thread about
>>>> that here :
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/users@felix.apache.org/msg13638.html
>>>>
>>>> Do you now have "some people" and roadmap on that subject ?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you !
>>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Apache Felix and OSGI R5
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Hi
Am 12.09.2013 um 08:33 schrieb ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com:
> Thank you for this first and quick answer... Let me be more precise.
>
> Currently we are working on Apache Felix iPojo integration into WildFly
> alpha. As you may know the WildFly alpha OSGI is based on JBoss OSGI 2.1
> which is using org.osgi.core 5.0.0 and we believe this is the reason why
> our integration of iPojo to WildFly is not working because as far as I
> see in the svn Felix trunk pom the current OSGI version is 4.2.0...
I don't think this is the problem: iPojo may be written against OSGi R4.2 but there is no reason to believe it would not run on an OSGi R5 Core compliant framework. The OSGi API is (up to now) always fully backwards compatible so that code written against old versions will work with newer versions (unless they implement OSGi API, which may require updates, but AFAICT that is not the case with iPojo)
I think the iPojo community would be more than willing to help you on concrete issues you may encounter deploying WildFly with iPojo on JBoss OSGi. But you would probably have to be more specific reporting issues.
Does that make sense ?
Regards
Felix
>
> Depending on the Felix roadmap we may postpone our iPojo integration
> into WildFly and use JBoss EAP 6 - which is using OSGI 4.2 through JBoss
> OSGI 1.X ... But maybe some people on this list already try and succeed
> this integration ?
>
> Thank you
>
> On 12/09/2013 08:20, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> What exactly do you want to know ?
>>
>> OSGi R5 (Core, Compendium, Enterprise) is a collection of specifications. Some are implemented in the Apache Felix project, some are not.
>>
>> As for OSGi R5 Core, IIRC the Felix Framework is almost complete (there has been done a gap analysis once). As for OSGi R5 Compendium and Enterprise: We have for example implementations of a number of service specifications (Log, Http, Configuration Admin, Declarative Services, Metatype, Preferences), which AFAICT are reasonably complete or even passing the OSGi R5 CT -- Configuration Admin is even the reference implementation.
>>
>> Other specifications, such as JTA, JDBC, etc., are implemented by the Apache Aries project.
>>
>> Does that help answer your question ?
>>
>> Regards
>> Felix
>>
>> Am 12.09.2013 um 07:33 schrieb ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I would like to get some news about OSGI R5 implementation in Apache
>>> Felix and Apache Felix iPojo as I just see a mail archived thread about
>>> that here :
>>>
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/users@felix.apache.org/msg13638.html
>>>
>>> Do you now have "some people" and roadmap on that subject ?
>>>
>>> Thank you !
>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
Re: Apache Felix and OSGI R5
Posted by "ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com" <ff...@gmail.com>.
Thank you for this first and quick answer... Let me be more precise.
Currently we are working on Apache Felix iPojo integration into WildFly
alpha. As you may know the WildFly alpha OSGI is based on JBoss OSGI 2.1
which is using org.osgi.core 5.0.0 and we believe this is the reason why
our integration of iPojo to WildFly is not working because as far as I
see in the svn Felix trunk pom the current OSGI version is 4.2.0...
Depending on the Felix roadmap we may postpone our iPojo integration
into WildFly and use JBoss EAP 6 - which is using OSGI 4.2 through JBoss
OSGI 1.X ... But maybe some people on this list already try and succeed
this integration ?
Thank you
On 12/09/2013 08:20, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi
>
> What exactly do you want to know ?
>
> OSGi R5 (Core, Compendium, Enterprise) is a collection of specifications. Some are implemented in the Apache Felix project, some are not.
>
> As for OSGi R5 Core, IIRC the Felix Framework is almost complete (there has been done a gap analysis once). As for OSGi R5 Compendium and Enterprise: We have for example implementations of a number of service specifications (Log, Http, Configuration Admin, Declarative Services, Metatype, Preferences), which AFAICT are reasonably complete or even passing the OSGi R5 CT -- Configuration Admin is even the reference implementation.
>
> Other specifications, such as JTA, JDBC, etc., are implemented by the Apache Aries project.
>
> Does that help answer your question ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> Am 12.09.2013 um 07:33 schrieb ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to get some news about OSGI R5 implementation in Apache
>> Felix and Apache Felix iPojo as I just see a mail archived thread about
>> that here :
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/users@felix.apache.org/msg13638.html
>>
>> Do you now have "some people" and roadmap on that subject ?
>>
>> Thank you !
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Apache Felix and OSGI R5
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Hi
What exactly do you want to know ?
OSGi R5 (Core, Compendium, Enterprise) is a collection of specifications. Some are implemented in the Apache Felix project, some are not.
As for OSGi R5 Core, IIRC the Felix Framework is almost complete (there has been done a gap analysis once). As for OSGi R5 Compendium and Enterprise: We have for example implementations of a number of service specifications (Log, Http, Configuration Admin, Declarative Services, Metatype, Preferences), which AFAICT are reasonably complete or even passing the OSGi R5 CT -- Configuration Admin is even the reference implementation.
Other specifications, such as JTA, JDBC, etc., are implemented by the Apache Aries project.
Does that help answer your question ?
Regards
Felix
Am 12.09.2013 um 07:33 schrieb ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to get some news about OSGI R5 implementation in Apache
> Felix and Apache Felix iPojo as I just see a mail archived thread about
> that here :
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/users@felix.apache.org/msg13638.html
>
> Do you now have "some people" and roadmap on that subject ?
>
> Thank you !
>