You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> on 2009/05/17 21:05:43 UTC
Excalibur...
none of the excalibur (ex-avalon) components are OSGi enabled. this
makes it a little tough to gradually migrate an avalon-based
application to OSGi. i've had a look around and can't seem to find
suitable releases around.
this is a little bit of a crazy idea but if there enough interested
committers then maybe we could go over to excalibur and ask for karma
to release new versions of pretty much everything with OSGi bindings.
i've taken a look and i'd be willing to do the leg work (it doesn't
look too bad) if enough committers were willing to review the
releases.
opinions?
- robert
Re: Excalibur...
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:32 PM, peter royal <pr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On May 17, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>>>> this is a little bit of a crazy idea but if there enough interested
>>>>> committers then maybe we could go over to excalibur and ask for karma
>>>>> to release new versions of pretty much everything with OSGi bindings.
>>>>> i've taken a look and i'd be willing to do the leg work (it doesn't
>>>>> look too bad) if enough committers were willing to review the
>>>>> releases.
>>>>>
>>>>> opinions?
>>>> that would be a great way to breathe some new life into that code!
>>> i get a little frustrated explaining to users that a lot of those
>>> services are tricky to get right, and i'd much rather use a mature
>>> component with little ongoing development that has been well tested in
>>> production than hack yet-another-thread-pool frmo stratch.
>>>
>> Oh, by the way :) I'Ve ported the thread pool to OSGi already...it's in
>> Sling commons.
>
> cool :-)
>
> any plans to bring it into the commons here...?
>
We discussed this briefly at the last ApacheCon Europe, but only briefly.
In general it makes sense to move this stuff over to Felix. I guess we
might address this, once Sling is top-level, so after we left the
incubation.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Excalibur...
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:32 PM, peter royal <pr...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On May 17, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>>> this is a little bit of a crazy idea but if there enough interested
>>>> committers then maybe we could go over to excalibur and ask for karma
>>>> to release new versions of pretty much everything with OSGi bindings.
>>>> i've taken a look and i'd be willing to do the leg work (it doesn't
>>>> look too bad) if enough committers were willing to review the
>>>> releases.
>>>>
>>>> opinions?
>>> that would be a great way to breathe some new life into that code!
>>
>> i get a little frustrated explaining to users that a lot of those
>> services are tricky to get right, and i'd much rather use a mature
>> component with little ongoing development that has been well tested in
>> production than hack yet-another-thread-pool frmo stratch.
>>
> Oh, by the way :) I'Ve ported the thread pool to OSGi already...it's in
> Sling commons.
cool :-)
any plans to bring it into the commons here...?
- robert
Re: Excalibur...
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:32 PM, peter royal <pr...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On May 17, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>> this is a little bit of a crazy idea but if there enough interested
>>> committers then maybe we could go over to excalibur and ask for karma
>>> to release new versions of pretty much everything with OSGi bindings.
>>> i've taken a look and i'd be willing to do the leg work (it doesn't
>>> look too bad) if enough committers were willing to review the
>>> releases.
>>>
>>> opinions?
>> that would be a great way to breathe some new life into that code!
>
> i get a little frustrated explaining to users that a lot of those
> services are tricky to get right, and i'd much rather use a mature
> component with little ongoing development that has been well tested in
> production than hack yet-another-thread-pool frmo stratch.
>
Oh, by the way :) I'Ve ported the thread pool to OSGi already...it's in
Sling commons.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Excalibur...
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:32 PM, peter royal <pr...@apache.org> wrote:
> On May 17, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>
>> this is a little bit of a crazy idea but if there enough interested
>> committers then maybe we could go over to excalibur and ask for karma
>> to release new versions of pretty much everything with OSGi bindings.
>> i've taken a look and i'd be willing to do the leg work (it doesn't
>> look too bad) if enough committers were willing to review the
>> releases.
>>
>> opinions?
>
> that would be a great way to breathe some new life into that code!
i get a little frustrated explaining to users that a lot of those
services are tricky to get right, and i'd much rather use a mature
component with little ongoing development that has been well tested in
production than hack yet-another-thread-pool frmo stratch.
- robert
Re: Excalibur...
Posted by peter royal <pr...@apache.org>.
On May 17, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> this is a little bit of a crazy idea but if there enough interested
> committers then maybe we could go over to excalibur and ask for karma
> to release new versions of pretty much everything with OSGi bindings.
> i've taken a look and i'd be willing to do the leg work (it doesn't
> look too bad) if enough committers were willing to review the
> releases.
>
> opinions?
that would be a great way to breathe some new life into that code!
-pete
--
(peter.royal|osi)@pobox.com - http://fotap.org/~osi
Re: Excalibur...
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> i'm willing to do most of the leg work but it's not going to fly
>> unless there are people with time and interest enough to review
>> releases
>
> Being an old Avalon aficionado, I can help out as well, but only with
> the "Incompatible Port" to OSGi.
great :-)
i've started a thread over on the excalibur dev list
- robert
Re: Excalibur...
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> i'm willing to do most of the leg work but it's not going to fly
>> unless there are people with time and interest enough to review
>> releases
>
> Being an old Avalon aficionado, I can help out as well, but only with
> the "Incompatible Port" to OSGi.
cool :-)
- robert
Re: Excalibur...
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i'm willing to do most of the leg work but it's not going to fly
> unless there are people with time and interest enough to review
> releases
Being an old Avalon aficionado, I can help out as well, but only with
the "Incompatible Port" to OSGi.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
Re: Excalibur...
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>> none of the excalibur (ex-avalon) components are OSGi enabled. this
>> makes it a little tough to gradually migrate an avalon-based
>> application to OSGi. i've had a look around and can't seem to find
>> suitable releases around.
>>
>> this is a little bit of a crazy idea but if there enough interested
>> committers then maybe we could go over to excalibur and ask for karma
>> to release new versions of pretty much everything with OSGi bindings.
>> i've taken a look and i'd be willing to do the leg work (it doesn't
>> look too bad) if enough committers were willing to review the
>> releases.
>>
>> opinions?
>>
> Well I'm not sure if there is enough interest in doing this; but it's
> an interesting idea anyway.
> Now, I think there are two things to consider, the first one is to
> remove the dependencies to the Avalon framework from the excalibur
> components; the other one is how to OSGi enable them.
>
> In Cocoon (where else?) we already have versions of some of the
> components without the Avalon dependencies (mostly the XML stuff),
> long time ago I started to remove the dependencies from other components
> (like the source resolver).
cool
i see the first short term goal as cutting new OSGi enabled point
versions (so that they can be used in OSGi environments) . i think
this is reasonable short term goal which wouldn't take too much doing.
then take a look at creating OSGi services based on them with new
major versions. this would be more effort but could be prioritised.
> So, in short, I'm not sure if I can dedicate a lot of time to help, but
> at least I'm interested :)
i'm willing to do most of the leg work but it's not going to fly
unless there are people with time and interest enough to review
releases
> (Maybe we should move this thread to excalibur?)
i'm still interest
1. felix is the OSGi hub. i still hope that some more people
interested mostly in OSGi might sign up to help ;-)
2. felix commons lacks a number of services (for example, data source
pools) for which excalibur has solid implementations. one option would
be create bundles in the felix commons based on improved excalibur
components.
- robert
Re: Excalibur...
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> none of the excalibur (ex-avalon) components are OSGi enabled. this
> makes it a little tough to gradually migrate an avalon-based
> application to OSGi. i've had a look around and can't seem to find
> suitable releases around.
>
> this is a little bit of a crazy idea but if there enough interested
> committers then maybe we could go over to excalibur and ask for karma
> to release new versions of pretty much everything with OSGi bindings.
> i've taken a look and i'd be willing to do the leg work (it doesn't
> look too bad) if enough committers were willing to review the
> releases.
>
> opinions?
>
Well I'm not sure if there is enough interest in doing this; but it's
an interesting idea anyway.
Now, I think there are two things to consider, the first one is to
remove the dependencies to the Avalon framework from the excalibur
components; the other one is how to OSGi enable them.
In Cocoon (where else?) we already have versions of some of the
components without the Avalon dependencies (mostly the XML stuff),
long time ago I started to remove the dependencies from other components
(like the source resolver).
So, in short, I'm not sure if I can dedicate a lot of time to help, but
at least I'm interested :)
(Maybe we should move this thread to excalibur?)
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: Excalibur...
Posted by peter royal <pr...@apache.org>.
On May 17, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> this is a little bit of a crazy idea but if there enough interested
> committers then maybe we could go over to excalibur and ask for karma
> to release new versions of pretty much everything with OSGi bindings.
> i've taken a look and i'd be willing to do the leg work (it doesn't
> look too bad) if enough committers were willing to review the
> releases.
>
> opinions?
that would be a great way to breathe some new life into that code!
-pete
--
(peter.royal|osi)@pobox.com - http://fotap.org/~osi