You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com> on 2008/11/04 17:33:17 UTC
Contributing parts of the ServiceRegistry Hooks (RFC 126) implementation into Felix
Hi all,
In the context of the Apache CXF project a number of people have been
involved in implementing the Distribution Software part of Distributed
OSGi (RFC 119 [1]).
For its functioning on the client side, Distributed OSGi depends on
the OSGi Service Registry Hooks (RFC 126, also available in [1]). To
keep us going we implemented certain bits of RFC 126 in a private copy
of Felix in the CXF DOSGi buildsystem. However, we would like to use
the real Felix, so we are interested in contributing our RFC 126 bits
into Felix so we can use it straight from there. This is referenced in
CXF bug https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1897
The CXF codebase doesnt contain all of RFC 126 - it only contains the
ListenerHook, which is about a third of RFC 126, but it would provide
a start...
If Felix is interested in taking this implementation, it might make
sense to create a bug in Felix JIRA so that this stuff can be attached
as a patch to that once its ready to move into Felix.
Thoughts anyone?
Best regards,
David
[1] http://www.osgi.org/download/osgi-4.2-early-draft.pdf
Re: Contributing parts of the ServiceRegistry Hooks (RFC 126)
implementation into Felix
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
Oh...I see (I read from Nabble, and it doesn't tell me this.) Never mind.
Glen
David Bosschaert wrote:
>
> Hi Glen,
>
> I sent this mail to dev@felix.apache.org, but copied
> dev@cxf.apache.org to keep the CXF community updated.
> Hope this makes sense...
>
> David
>
> 2008/11/4 Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> I don't know much about this, but this email seems better routed to the
>> Felix
>> project--first get them to incorporate your work, and then come back to
>> us.
>> Or would you like our support in getting the Felix project to accept your
>> code donation?
>>
>> Glen
>>
>>
>> David Bosschaert wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> In the context of the Apache CXF project a number of people have been
>>> involved in implementing the Distribution Software part of Distributed
>>> OSGi (RFC 119 [1]).
>>>
>>> For its functioning on the client side, Distributed OSGi depends on
>>> the OSGi Service Registry Hooks (RFC 126, also available in [1]). To
>>> keep us going we implemented certain bits of RFC 126 in a private copy
>>> of Felix in the CXF DOSGi buildsystem. However, we would like to use
>>> the real Felix, so we are interested in contributing our RFC 126 bits
>>> into Felix so we can use it straight from there. This is referenced in
>>> CXF bug https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1897
>>>
>>> The CXF codebase doesnt contain all of RFC 126 - it only contains the
>>> ListenerHook, which is about a third of RFC 126, but it would provide
>>> a start...
>>>
>>> If Felix is interested in taking this implementation, it might make
>>> sense to create a bug in Felix JIRA so that this stuff can be attached
>>> as a patch to that once its ready to move into Felix.
>>>
>>> Thoughts anyone?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.osgi.org/download/osgi-4.2-early-draft.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Contributing-parts-of-the-ServiceRegistry-Hooks-%28RFC-126%29-implementation-into-Felix-tp20325861p20327352.html
>> Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Contributing-parts-of-the-ServiceRegistry-Hooks-%28RFC-126%29-implementation-into-Felix-tp20325861p20327523.html
Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Contributing parts of the ServiceRegistry Hooks (RFC 126) implementation into Felix
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
Hi Glen,
I sent this mail to dev@felix.apache.org, but copied
dev@cxf.apache.org to keep the CXF community updated.
Hope this makes sense...
David
2008/11/4 Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>:
>
> I don't know much about this, but this email seems better routed to the Felix
> project--first get them to incorporate your work, and then come back to us.
> Or would you like our support in getting the Felix project to accept your
> code donation?
>
> Glen
>
>
> David Bosschaert wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In the context of the Apache CXF project a number of people have been
>> involved in implementing the Distribution Software part of Distributed
>> OSGi (RFC 119 [1]).
>>
>> For its functioning on the client side, Distributed OSGi depends on
>> the OSGi Service Registry Hooks (RFC 126, also available in [1]). To
>> keep us going we implemented certain bits of RFC 126 in a private copy
>> of Felix in the CXF DOSGi buildsystem. However, we would like to use
>> the real Felix, so we are interested in contributing our RFC 126 bits
>> into Felix so we can use it straight from there. This is referenced in
>> CXF bug https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1897
>>
>> The CXF codebase doesnt contain all of RFC 126 - it only contains the
>> ListenerHook, which is about a third of RFC 126, but it would provide
>> a start...
>>
>> If Felix is interested in taking this implementation, it might make
>> sense to create a bug in Felix JIRA so that this stuff can be attached
>> as a patch to that once its ready to move into Felix.
>>
>> Thoughts anyone?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> David
>>
>> [1] http://www.osgi.org/download/osgi-4.2-early-draft.pdf
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Contributing-parts-of-the-ServiceRegistry-Hooks-%28RFC-126%29-implementation-into-Felix-tp20325861p20327352.html
> Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
Re: Contributing parts of the ServiceRegistry Hooks (RFC 126)
implementation into Felix
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
I don't know much about this, but this email seems better routed to the Felix
project--first get them to incorporate your work, and then come back to us.
Or would you like our support in getting the Felix project to accept your
code donation?
Glen
David Bosschaert wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> In the context of the Apache CXF project a number of people have been
> involved in implementing the Distribution Software part of Distributed
> OSGi (RFC 119 [1]).
>
> For its functioning on the client side, Distributed OSGi depends on
> the OSGi Service Registry Hooks (RFC 126, also available in [1]). To
> keep us going we implemented certain bits of RFC 126 in a private copy
> of Felix in the CXF DOSGi buildsystem. However, we would like to use
> the real Felix, so we are interested in contributing our RFC 126 bits
> into Felix so we can use it straight from there. This is referenced in
> CXF bug https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1897
>
> The CXF codebase doesnt contain all of RFC 126 - it only contains the
> ListenerHook, which is about a third of RFC 126, but it would provide
> a start...
>
> If Felix is interested in taking this implementation, it might make
> sense to create a bug in Felix JIRA so that this stuff can be attached
> as a patch to that once its ready to move into Felix.
>
> Thoughts anyone?
>
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
> [1] http://www.osgi.org/download/osgi-4.2-early-draft.pdf
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Contributing-parts-of-the-ServiceRegistry-Hooks-%28RFC-126%29-implementation-into-Felix-tp20325861p20327352.html
Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Contributing parts of the ServiceRegistry Hooks (RFC 126) implementation into Felix
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
Just to let you know that over the past few day's I've been working
with Richard on this issue
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-804). The code now sits
in the Felix trunk and I have verified that it works with the DOSGi
code in the CXF sandbox. My understanding is that the Felix project
can a release relatively soon, once that's there we can start moving
this code out of the sandbox.
(BTW the DOSGi code also works with the latest Equinox version, as
that already has a full RFC 126 implementation)
Cheers,
David
2008/11/4 Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org>:
> I think it sounds reasonable. I am all for creating a JIRA issue with
> appropriate patch.
>
> I assume that since this is already in CXF svn repo, that IP clearance is
> already taken care of, so we should just be able to move forward with the
> proposed patch. Is that correct?
>
> -> richard
>
> David Bosschaert wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In the context of the Apache CXF project a number of people have been
>> involved in implementing the Distribution Software part of Distributed
>> OSGi (RFC 119 [1]).
>>
>> For its functioning on the client side, Distributed OSGi depends on
>> the OSGi Service Registry Hooks (RFC 126, also available in [1]). To
>> keep us going we implemented certain bits of RFC 126 in a private copy
>> of Felix in the CXF DOSGi buildsystem. However, we would like to use
>> the real Felix, so we are interested in contributing our RFC 126 bits
>> into Felix so we can use it straight from there. This is referenced in
>> CXF bug https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1897
>>
>> The CXF codebase doesnt contain all of RFC 126 - it only contains the
>> ListenerHook, which is about a third of RFC 126, but it would provide
>> a start...
>>
>> If Felix is interested in taking this implementation, it might make
>> sense to create a bug in Felix JIRA so that this stuff can be attached
>> as a patch to that once its ready to move into Felix.
>>
>> Thoughts anyone?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> David
>>
>> [1] http://www.osgi.org/download/osgi-4.2-early-draft.pdf
>>
>
Re: Contributing parts of the ServiceRegistry Hooks (RFC 126) implementation
into Felix
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
I will try to take a look at it soon.
-> richard
David Bosschaert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> 2008/11/7 David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>:
>
>> 2008/11/4 Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org>:
>>
>>> I think it sounds reasonable. I am all for creating a JIRA issue with
>>> appropriate patch.
>>>
>> Great. I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-804
>> where the patch will ultimately be attached.
>>
>
> I've attached the patch containing the ListenerHook implementation to
> this bug. I also put some notes regarding the patch in the comment of
> the bug.
> It would be great if someone could review and apply it.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> David
>
Re: Contributing parts of the ServiceRegistry Hooks (RFC 126) implementation into Felix
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
2008/11/7 David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>:
> 2008/11/4 Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org>:
>> I think it sounds reasonable. I am all for creating a JIRA issue with
>> appropriate patch.
>
> Great. I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-804
> where the patch will ultimately be attached.
I've attached the patch containing the ListenerHook implementation to
this bug. I also put some notes regarding the patch in the comment of
the bug.
It would be great if someone could review and apply it.
Many thanks,
David
Re: Contributing parts of the ServiceRegistry Hooks (RFC 126) implementation into Felix
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
2008/11/4 Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org>:
> I think it sounds reasonable. I am all for creating a JIRA issue with
> appropriate patch.
Great. I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-804
where the patch will ultimately be attached.
> I assume that since this is already in CXF svn repo, that IP clearance is
> already taken care of, so we should just be able to move forward with the
> proposed patch. Is that correct?
Yes. All the code in the CXF sandbox has been contributed to the ASF
through the appropriate processes.
Cheers,
David
Re: Contributing parts of the ServiceRegistry Hooks (RFC 126) implementation
into Felix
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
I think it sounds reasonable. I am all for creating a JIRA issue with
appropriate patch.
I assume that since this is already in CXF svn repo, that IP clearance
is already taken care of, so we should just be able to move forward with
the proposed patch. Is that correct?
-> richard
David Bosschaert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In the context of the Apache CXF project a number of people have been
> involved in implementing the Distribution Software part of Distributed
> OSGi (RFC 119 [1]).
>
> For its functioning on the client side, Distributed OSGi depends on
> the OSGi Service Registry Hooks (RFC 126, also available in [1]). To
> keep us going we implemented certain bits of RFC 126 in a private copy
> of Felix in the CXF DOSGi buildsystem. However, we would like to use
> the real Felix, so we are interested in contributing our RFC 126 bits
> into Felix so we can use it straight from there. This is referenced in
> CXF bug https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1897
>
> The CXF codebase doesnt contain all of RFC 126 - it only contains the
> ListenerHook, which is about a third of RFC 126, but it would provide
> a start...
>
> If Felix is interested in taking this implementation, it might make
> sense to create a bug in Felix JIRA so that this stuff can be attached
> as a patch to that once its ready to move into Felix.
>
> Thoughts anyone?
>
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
> [1] http://www.osgi.org/download/osgi-4.2-early-draft.pdf
>
Re: Contributing parts of the ServiceRegistry Hooks (RFC 126) implementation into Felix
Posted by Stuart McCulloch <mc...@gmail.com>.
2008/11/5 David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>
> Hi all,
>
> In the context of the Apache CXF project a number of people have been
> involved in implementing the Distribution Software part of Distributed
> OSGi (RFC 119 [1]).
>
> For its functioning on the client side, Distributed OSGi depends on
> the OSGi Service Registry Hooks (RFC 126, also available in [1]). To
> keep us going we implemented certain bits of RFC 126 in a private copy
> of Felix in the CXF DOSGi buildsystem. However, we would like to use
> the real Felix, so we are interested in contributing our RFC 126 bits
> into Felix so we can use it straight from there. This is referenced in
> CXF bug https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1897
>
> The CXF codebase doesnt contain all of RFC 126 - it only contains the
> ListenerHook, which is about a third of RFC 126, but it would provide
> a start...
>
> If Felix is interested in taking this implementation, it might make
> sense to create a bug in Felix JIRA so that this stuff can be attached
> as a patch to that once its ready to move into Felix.
>
> Thoughts anyone?
>
+1 sounds good to me
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
> [1] http://www.osgi.org/download/osgi-4.2-early-draft.pdf
>
--
Cheers, Stuart
Re: Contributing parts of the ServiceRegistry Hooks (RFC 126) implementation
into Felix
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
I think it sounds reasonable. I am all for creating a JIRA issue with
appropriate patch.
I assume that since this is already in CXF svn repo, that IP clearance
is already taken care of, so we should just be able to move forward with
the proposed patch. Is that correct?
-> richard
David Bosschaert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In the context of the Apache CXF project a number of people have been
> involved in implementing the Distribution Software part of Distributed
> OSGi (RFC 119 [1]).
>
> For its functioning on the client side, Distributed OSGi depends on
> the OSGi Service Registry Hooks (RFC 126, also available in [1]). To
> keep us going we implemented certain bits of RFC 126 in a private copy
> of Felix in the CXF DOSGi buildsystem. However, we would like to use
> the real Felix, so we are interested in contributing our RFC 126 bits
> into Felix so we can use it straight from there. This is referenced in
> CXF bug https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1897
>
> The CXF codebase doesnt contain all of RFC 126 - it only contains the
> ListenerHook, which is about a third of RFC 126, but it would provide
> a start...
>
> If Felix is interested in taking this implementation, it might make
> sense to create a bug in Felix JIRA so that this stuff can be attached
> as a patch to that once its ready to move into Felix.
>
> Thoughts anyone?
>
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
> [1] http://www.osgi.org/download/osgi-4.2-early-draft.pdf
>
Re: Contributing parts of the ServiceRegistry Hooks (RFC 126) implementation into Felix
Posted by Stuart McCulloch <mc...@gmail.com>.
2008/11/5 David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>
> Hi all,
>
> In the context of the Apache CXF project a number of people have been
> involved in implementing the Distribution Software part of Distributed
> OSGi (RFC 119 [1]).
>
> For its functioning on the client side, Distributed OSGi depends on
> the OSGi Service Registry Hooks (RFC 126, also available in [1]). To
> keep us going we implemented certain bits of RFC 126 in a private copy
> of Felix in the CXF DOSGi buildsystem. However, we would like to use
> the real Felix, so we are interested in contributing our RFC 126 bits
> into Felix so we can use it straight from there. This is referenced in
> CXF bug https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-1897
>
> The CXF codebase doesnt contain all of RFC 126 - it only contains the
> ListenerHook, which is about a third of RFC 126, but it would provide
> a start...
>
> If Felix is interested in taking this implementation, it might make
> sense to create a bug in Felix JIRA so that this stuff can be attached
> as a patch to that once its ready to move into Felix.
>
> Thoughts anyone?
>
+1 sounds good to me
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
> [1] http://www.osgi.org/download/osgi-4.2-early-draft.pdf
>
--
Cheers, Stuart
Re: Contributing parts of the ServiceRegistry Hooks (RFC 126) implementation into Felix
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>.
Hello David,
On Nov 4, 2008, at 17:33 , David Bosschaert wrote:
> In the context of the Apache CXF project a number of people have been
> involved in implementing the Distribution Software part of Distributed
> OSGi (RFC 119 [1]). [...]
> If Felix is interested in taking this implementation, it might make
> sense to create a bug in Felix JIRA so that this stuff can be attached
> as a patch to that once its ready to move into Felix.
+1 That's great news! After discussing this with you in Berlin, I've
become very enthousiastic about this.
Greetings, Marcel