You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> on 2009/06/09 22:11:41 UTC
Re: [Karaf] Switching to blueprint ...
I'm maintaing locally a git branch of karaf which uses blueprint
instead of spring-dm. The blueprint implementation is a bit more
mature / stable now and I think it would be a good idea to switch.
That said, we should also provide a feature to allow spring-dm powered
bundles to be deployed. There are still a couple of things to do (fix
the integration tests, display back spring-dm bundles in osgi/list
command if spring-dm is installed), but my branch does not seem too
broken.
The only drawback I can see is that blueprint will depend on OSGi 4.2
(the current implementation has hacked the only dep on 4.2 so that it
can run on the latest felix release). I've seen the api has been
updated, so maybe we can depend on a felix snapshot for now.
So i'd like to commit the changes I have locally to avoid doing that
in the dark for too long a time. Thoughts ?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 15:45, Guillaume Nodet<gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The past days, I've been working on the blueprint implementation
> inside Geronimo [1].
> The spec is still being written so the implementation is not really
> stable and is still missing a lot of features.
> However, it's already somewhat usable and as I've hacked Karaf to
> start using blueprint instead of spring-dm in a branch [2].
> Tests do not even compile, but I've been able to start the console, so
> I thought I would talk about it a bit.
>
> This raises the question whether we want to switch to blueprint
> instead of spring-dm.
> I think we should, and even have to, given that Spring-DM will switch
> to support Blueprint at some point in the future too. Also the
> blueprint spec is way better than spring-dm wrt to namespace handlers
> (that are considered dependencies, so we would not have problems with
> namespace handlers not being available when a bundle is started) and
> classloading (i think classes loaded for namespace handlers will be
> loaded from the namespace handler bundle, thus freeing the bundle to
> import all the namespace handlers packages), though those areas are in
> flux.
>
> If so, we might even want to do that before renaming the packages, as
> the patch is quite big and would be quite broken after the rename imho
> ...
>
> As for tests, we'd have to switch to something else, which could be
> junit4osgi from iPojo or pax-exam for example.
>
> Feedback welcome.
>
> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/blueprint
> [2] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/sandbox/gnodet/karaf-blueprint/
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
Re: [Karaf] Switching to blueprint ...
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 6/9/09 5:45 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> I heard that for the compendium spec. But iirc, the idea was to
> include each part of the spec in the implementation bundle.
> What about doing the same for core ? i.e. include the core osgi api
> inside the framework jar. That would remove some potential problem
> where user need to find the corresponding version of the api somewhere
> else ...
>
Yep.
We do embed the OSGi API needed by the framework (+ service tracker)
into the framework JAR. We will continue to do this. I just mean there
will be no separate OSGi JARs released by us anymore...and we likely can
delete the source from our repo if the official JARs are put into a
maven repo some place.
-> richard
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 23:13, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>
>> On 6/9/09 4:52 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>
>>> The only dependency is on the ServiceException which is part of 4.2.
>>> I guess we can use a snapshot of the osgi api for now.
>>> Btw, is there any location where such snapshots are deployed ? I
>>> haven't found any recent build on
>>> http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository
>>>
>>>
>> We don't plan on publishing the OSGi APIs any more, nor am I aware of anyone
>> who does. The R4.2 JAR should go final and be made public any day now, so we
>> won't have to wait too long and then someone can put it in a repo some
>> place.
>>
>> Regarding the ServiceException, that is in trunk now.
>>
>> -> richard
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 22:24, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 6/9/09 4:11 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm maintaing locally a git branch of karaf which uses blueprint
>>>>> instead of spring-dm. The blueprint implementation is a bit more
>>>>> mature / stable now and I think it would be a good idea to switch.
>>>>> That said, we should also provide a feature to allow spring-dm powered
>>>>> bundles to be deployed. There are still a couple of things to do (fix
>>>>> the integration tests, display back spring-dm bundles in osgi/list
>>>>> command if spring-dm is installed), but my branch does not seem too
>>>>> broken.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only drawback I can see is that blueprint will depend on OSGi 4.2
>>>>> (the current implementation has hacked the only dep on 4.2 so that it
>>>>> can run on the latest felix release). I've seen the api has been
>>>>> updated, so maybe we can depend on a felix snapshot for now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> What 4.2 dependencies? The Felix 2.0.0 release should include the R4.2
>>>> API
>>>> as you've already noticed, so this shouldn't be an issue, but if you need
>>>> something specific implemented, we should try to coordinate that...
>>>>
>>>> -> richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So i'd like to commit the changes I have locally to avoid doing that
>>>>> in the dark for too long a time. Thoughts ?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 15:45, Guillaume Nodet<gn...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The past days, I've been working on the blueprint implementation
>>>>>> inside Geronimo [1].
>>>>>> The spec is still being written so the implementation is not really
>>>>>> stable and is still missing a lot of features.
>>>>>> However, it's already somewhat usable and as I've hacked Karaf to
>>>>>> start using blueprint instead of spring-dm in a branch [2].
>>>>>> Tests do not even compile, but I've been able to start the console, so
>>>>>> I thought I would talk about it a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This raises the question whether we want to switch to blueprint
>>>>>> instead of spring-dm.
>>>>>> I think we should, and even have to, given that Spring-DM will switch
>>>>>> to support Blueprint at some point in the future too. Also the
>>>>>> blueprint spec is way better than spring-dm wrt to namespace handlers
>>>>>> (that are considered dependencies, so we would not have problems with
>>>>>> namespace handlers not being available when a bundle is started) and
>>>>>> classloading (i think classes loaded for namespace handlers will be
>>>>>> loaded from the namespace handler bundle, thus freeing the bundle to
>>>>>> import all the namespace handlers packages), though those areas are in
>>>>>> flux.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, we might even want to do that before renaming the packages, as
>>>>>> the patch is quite big and would be quite broken after the rename imho
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for tests, we'd have to switch to something else, which could be
>>>>>> junit4osgi from iPojo or pax-exam for example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Feedback welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/blueprint
>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/sandbox/gnodet/karaf-blueprint/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Karaf] Switching to blueprint ...
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
I heard that for the compendium spec. But iirc, the idea was to
include each part of the spec in the implementation bundle.
What about doing the same for core ? i.e. include the core osgi api
inside the framework jar. That would remove some potential problem
where user need to find the corresponding version of the api somewhere
else ...
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 23:13, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
> On 6/9/09 4:52 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>
>> The only dependency is on the ServiceException which is part of 4.2.
>> I guess we can use a snapshot of the osgi api for now.
>> Btw, is there any location where such snapshots are deployed ? I
>> haven't found any recent build on
>> http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository
>>
>
> We don't plan on publishing the OSGi APIs any more, nor am I aware of anyone
> who does. The R4.2 JAR should go final and be made public any day now, so we
> won't have to wait too long and then someone can put it in a repo some
> place.
>
> Regarding the ServiceException, that is in trunk now.
>
> -> richard
>
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 22:24, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 6/9/09 4:11 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm maintaing locally a git branch of karaf which uses blueprint
>>>> instead of spring-dm. The blueprint implementation is a bit more
>>>> mature / stable now and I think it would be a good idea to switch.
>>>> That said, we should also provide a feature to allow spring-dm powered
>>>> bundles to be deployed. There are still a couple of things to do (fix
>>>> the integration tests, display back spring-dm bundles in osgi/list
>>>> command if spring-dm is installed), but my branch does not seem too
>>>> broken.
>>>>
>>>> The only drawback I can see is that blueprint will depend on OSGi 4.2
>>>> (the current implementation has hacked the only dep on 4.2 so that it
>>>> can run on the latest felix release). I've seen the api has been
>>>> updated, so maybe we can depend on a felix snapshot for now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What 4.2 dependencies? The Felix 2.0.0 release should include the R4.2
>>> API
>>> as you've already noticed, so this shouldn't be an issue, but if you need
>>> something specific implemented, we should try to coordinate that...
>>>
>>> -> richard
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So i'd like to commit the changes I have locally to avoid doing that
>>>> in the dark for too long a time. Thoughts ?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 15:45, Guillaume Nodet<gn...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The past days, I've been working on the blueprint implementation
>>>>> inside Geronimo [1].
>>>>> The spec is still being written so the implementation is not really
>>>>> stable and is still missing a lot of features.
>>>>> However, it's already somewhat usable and as I've hacked Karaf to
>>>>> start using blueprint instead of spring-dm in a branch [2].
>>>>> Tests do not even compile, but I've been able to start the console, so
>>>>> I thought I would talk about it a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> This raises the question whether we want to switch to blueprint
>>>>> instead of spring-dm.
>>>>> I think we should, and even have to, given that Spring-DM will switch
>>>>> to support Blueprint at some point in the future too. Also the
>>>>> blueprint spec is way better than spring-dm wrt to namespace handlers
>>>>> (that are considered dependencies, so we would not have problems with
>>>>> namespace handlers not being available when a bundle is started) and
>>>>> classloading (i think classes loaded for namespace handlers will be
>>>>> loaded from the namespace handler bundle, thus freeing the bundle to
>>>>> import all the namespace handlers packages), though those areas are in
>>>>> flux.
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, we might even want to do that before renaming the packages, as
>>>>> the patch is quite big and would be quite broken after the rename imho
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> As for tests, we'd have to switch to something else, which could be
>>>>> junit4osgi from iPojo or pax-exam for example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Feedback welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/blueprint
>>>>> [2]
>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/sandbox/gnodet/karaf-blueprint/
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
Re: [Karaf] Switching to blueprint ...
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 6/9/09 4:52 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> The only dependency is on the ServiceException which is part of 4.2.
> I guess we can use a snapshot of the osgi api for now.
> Btw, is there any location where such snapshots are deployed ? I
> haven't found any recent build on
> http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository
>
We don't plan on publishing the OSGi APIs any more, nor am I aware of
anyone who does. The R4.2 JAR should go final and be made public any day
now, so we won't have to wait too long and then someone can put it in a
repo some place.
Regarding the ServiceException, that is in trunk now.
-> richard
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 22:24, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>
>> On 6/9/09 4:11 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>
>>> I'm maintaing locally a git branch of karaf which uses blueprint
>>> instead of spring-dm. The blueprint implementation is a bit more
>>> mature / stable now and I think it would be a good idea to switch.
>>> That said, we should also provide a feature to allow spring-dm powered
>>> bundles to be deployed. There are still a couple of things to do (fix
>>> the integration tests, display back spring-dm bundles in osgi/list
>>> command if spring-dm is installed), but my branch does not seem too
>>> broken.
>>>
>>> The only drawback I can see is that blueprint will depend on OSGi 4.2
>>> (the current implementation has hacked the only dep on 4.2 so that it
>>> can run on the latest felix release). I've seen the api has been
>>> updated, so maybe we can depend on a felix snapshot for now.
>>>
>>>
>> What 4.2 dependencies? The Felix 2.0.0 release should include the R4.2 API
>> as you've already noticed, so this shouldn't be an issue, but if you need
>> something specific implemented, we should try to coordinate that...
>>
>> -> richard
>>
>>> So i'd like to commit the changes I have locally to avoid doing that
>>> in the dark for too long a time. Thoughts ?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 15:45, Guillaume Nodet<gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The past days, I've been working on the blueprint implementation
>>>> inside Geronimo [1].
>>>> The spec is still being written so the implementation is not really
>>>> stable and is still missing a lot of features.
>>>> However, it's already somewhat usable and as I've hacked Karaf to
>>>> start using blueprint instead of spring-dm in a branch [2].
>>>> Tests do not even compile, but I've been able to start the console, so
>>>> I thought I would talk about it a bit.
>>>>
>>>> This raises the question whether we want to switch to blueprint
>>>> instead of spring-dm.
>>>> I think we should, and even have to, given that Spring-DM will switch
>>>> to support Blueprint at some point in the future too. Also the
>>>> blueprint spec is way better than spring-dm wrt to namespace handlers
>>>> (that are considered dependencies, so we would not have problems with
>>>> namespace handlers not being available when a bundle is started) and
>>>> classloading (i think classes loaded for namespace handlers will be
>>>> loaded from the namespace handler bundle, thus freeing the bundle to
>>>> import all the namespace handlers packages), though those areas are in
>>>> flux.
>>>>
>>>> If so, we might even want to do that before renaming the packages, as
>>>> the patch is quite big and would be quite broken after the rename imho
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> As for tests, we'd have to switch to something else, which could be
>>>> junit4osgi from iPojo or pax-exam for example.
>>>>
>>>> Feedback welcome.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/blueprint
>>>> [2]
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/sandbox/gnodet/karaf-blueprint/
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Karaf] Switching to blueprint ...
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
The only dependency is on the ServiceException which is part of 4.2.
I guess we can use a snapshot of the osgi api for now.
Btw, is there any location where such snapshots are deployed ? I
haven't found any recent build on
http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 22:24, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/9/09 4:11 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>
>> I'm maintaing locally a git branch of karaf which uses blueprint
>> instead of spring-dm. The blueprint implementation is a bit more
>> mature / stable now and I think it would be a good idea to switch.
>> That said, we should also provide a feature to allow spring-dm powered
>> bundles to be deployed. There are still a couple of things to do (fix
>> the integration tests, display back spring-dm bundles in osgi/list
>> command if spring-dm is installed), but my branch does not seem too
>> broken.
>>
>> The only drawback I can see is that blueprint will depend on OSGi 4.2
>> (the current implementation has hacked the only dep on 4.2 so that it
>> can run on the latest felix release). I've seen the api has been
>> updated, so maybe we can depend on a felix snapshot for now.
>>
>
> What 4.2 dependencies? The Felix 2.0.0 release should include the R4.2 API
> as you've already noticed, so this shouldn't be an issue, but if you need
> something specific implemented, we should try to coordinate that...
>
> -> richard
>>
>> So i'd like to commit the changes I have locally to avoid doing that
>> in the dark for too long a time. Thoughts ?
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 15:45, Guillaume Nodet<gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The past days, I've been working on the blueprint implementation
>>> inside Geronimo [1].
>>> The spec is still being written so the implementation is not really
>>> stable and is still missing a lot of features.
>>> However, it's already somewhat usable and as I've hacked Karaf to
>>> start using blueprint instead of spring-dm in a branch [2].
>>> Tests do not even compile, but I've been able to start the console, so
>>> I thought I would talk about it a bit.
>>>
>>> This raises the question whether we want to switch to blueprint
>>> instead of spring-dm.
>>> I think we should, and even have to, given that Spring-DM will switch
>>> to support Blueprint at some point in the future too. Also the
>>> blueprint spec is way better than spring-dm wrt to namespace handlers
>>> (that are considered dependencies, so we would not have problems with
>>> namespace handlers not being available when a bundle is started) and
>>> classloading (i think classes loaded for namespace handlers will be
>>> loaded from the namespace handler bundle, thus freeing the bundle to
>>> import all the namespace handlers packages), though those areas are in
>>> flux.
>>>
>>> If so, we might even want to do that before renaming the packages, as
>>> the patch is quite big and would be quite broken after the rename imho
>>> ...
>>>
>>> As for tests, we'd have to switch to something else, which could be
>>> junit4osgi from iPojo or pax-exam for example.
>>>
>>> Feedback welcome.
>>>
>>> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/blueprint
>>> [2]
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/sandbox/gnodet/karaf-blueprint/
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>> ------------------------
>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>> ------------------------
>>> Open Source SOA
>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
Re: [Karaf] Switching to blueprint ...
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 6/9/09 4:11 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> I'm maintaing locally a git branch of karaf which uses blueprint
> instead of spring-dm. The blueprint implementation is a bit more
> mature / stable now and I think it would be a good idea to switch.
> That said, we should also provide a feature to allow spring-dm powered
> bundles to be deployed. There are still a couple of things to do (fix
> the integration tests, display back spring-dm bundles in osgi/list
> command if spring-dm is installed), but my branch does not seem too
> broken.
>
> The only drawback I can see is that blueprint will depend on OSGi 4.2
> (the current implementation has hacked the only dep on 4.2 so that it
> can run on the latest felix release). I've seen the api has been
> updated, so maybe we can depend on a felix snapshot for now.
>
What 4.2 dependencies? The Felix 2.0.0 release should include the R4.2
API as you've already noticed, so this shouldn't be an issue, but if you
need something specific implemented, we should try to coordinate that...
-> richard
> So i'd like to commit the changes I have locally to avoid doing that
> in the dark for too long a time. Thoughts ?
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 15:45, Guillaume Nodet<gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The past days, I've been working on the blueprint implementation
>> inside Geronimo [1].
>> The spec is still being written so the implementation is not really
>> stable and is still missing a lot of features.
>> However, it's already somewhat usable and as I've hacked Karaf to
>> start using blueprint instead of spring-dm in a branch [2].
>> Tests do not even compile, but I've been able to start the console, so
>> I thought I would talk about it a bit.
>>
>> This raises the question whether we want to switch to blueprint
>> instead of spring-dm.
>> I think we should, and even have to, given that Spring-DM will switch
>> to support Blueprint at some point in the future too. Also the
>> blueprint spec is way better than spring-dm wrt to namespace handlers
>> (that are considered dependencies, so we would not have problems with
>> namespace handlers not being available when a bundle is started) and
>> classloading (i think classes loaded for namespace handlers will be
>> loaded from the namespace handler bundle, thus freeing the bundle to
>> import all the namespace handlers packages), though those areas are in
>> flux.
>>
>> If so, we might even want to do that before renaming the packages, as
>> the patch is quite big and would be quite broken after the rename imho
>> ...
>>
>> As for tests, we'd have to switch to something else, which could be
>> junit4osgi from iPojo or pax-exam for example.
>>
>> Feedback welcome.
>>
>> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/blueprint
>> [2] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/sandbox/gnodet/karaf-blueprint/
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Guillaume Nodet
>> ------------------------
>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>> ------------------------
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://fusesource.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
>