cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryoz...@progress.com>
Subject Re: Getting the Distributed OSGi component out of the CXF sandbox
Date Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:43:52 GMT
Hi

>> - align the ListenerHook interface with the final version used in Equinox
> I've added CXF-1896 for this.

this should be just about renaming 3 standard methods and dropping the one we introduced to
support the direct lookups.

>
>> - find some alternative mechanism for transparent registration of remote services
looked up directly (i.e. via 
>> BundleContext.getServiceReferences() as opposed to a ServiceTracker/Listener)
> This is an issue with the design of RFC 126 and needs to be discussed
> in the OSGi Alliance.

We very briefly chatted about it with Eoghan - perhaps there's a case for introducing another
simple hook like DirectLookupHook to 
preserve the semantics of ListenerHook ? Perhaps extending a FindHook with a new method might
do too ?

> However, is it really an issue that would block
> the contribution to Felix? I personally don't think it's a blocker for
> moving the code to Felix.

No it shouldn't - we'd just need to change or drop the simple pojo demo and possibly update
one of the spring dm system tests, as a 
result of dropping our private ListenerHook method dealing with direct lookups

Cheers, Sergey

>
>> - probably a bit more test coverage
> Added CXF-1897
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
>
> 2008/11/3 Eoghan Glynn <eoglynn@progress.com>:
>>
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> It would be great to have RFC 126 support in Felix as well as Equinox, as obviously
this would remove a barrier to wide adoption 
>> of dOSGi.
>>
>> So I agree, it would be a good move to contribute back the ListenerHook support from
the forked version of Felix that we've put 
>> in the CXF sandox. In practical terms, it would be more straight-forward for us to
take a dependency on another maven-friendly 
>> Apache project. However, there are a few bits of work required before the Felix-based
ListenerHook support could be submitted to 
>> Felix:
>>
>> - align the ListenerHook interface with the final version used in Equinox
>>
>> - find some alternative mechanism for transparent registration of remote services
looked up directly (i.e. via 
>> BundleContext.getServiceReferences() as opposed to a ServiceTracker/Listener)
>>
>> - probably a bit more test coverage
>>
>> We'd then be relying on the Felix community to flesh out the initial contribution,
so as to form a fully-fledged RFC 126 
>> implementation (e.g. add support for the FindHook, which we don't use directly in
distributed OSGi, but would be useful in other 
>> contexts).
>>
>> But I also think we really should be leveraging the existing Equinox 126 implementation
in the near-term, for example to validate 
>> the initial re-basing of dOSGi on the new version of the ListenerHook. Also, the
earlier we smoke out any issues in the Equinox 
>> service hooks (e.g. in advance of the OSGi EEG f2f meeting next week), the better
chance we have of getting a rapid fix.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Eoghan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Bosschaert [mailto:david.bosschaert@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Mon 03/11/2008 04:28
>> To: dev@cxf.apache.org
>> Subject: Getting the Distributed OSGi component out of the CXF sandbox
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The DOSGi sanbox project is getting closer to being a fully functional
>> Reference Implementation of the Distribution Software (DSW) component
>> of Distributed OSGi (RFC 119).
>> The main thing that prevents it from moving out of the sandbox is the
>> fact that it currently uses a modified version of Felix. Distributed
>> OSGi depends on a new addition to the OSGi Core Spec: the Service
>> Registry hooks (RFC 126). It uses this to transparently notify any
>> registered Discovery systems of the OSGi services that consumers are
>> interested in so that these Discovery systems can register just those
>> remote services that make sense to the current application.
>> For this purpose, the modified Felix code in the CXF DOSGi sanbox
>> codebase contains the bits of RFC 126 that it needs to function. It's
>> not a full RFC 126 implementation though.
>>
>> Felix itself doesn't yet contain an implementation of RFC 126 and my
>> understanding is that the project would potentially be interested in
>> our work regarding Service Registry hooks. Therefore one idea would be
>> to take our RFC 126 bits and submit them to the Felix project. We
>> should then ultimately be able to simply depend on Felix and all of
>> the DOSGi code will then be ready to move out of the sandbox.
>>
>> BTW the latest builds of Equinox do actually contain an implementation
>> of the full RFC 126 specification, so the DOSGi code should already
>> work with Equinox.
>>
>> Thoughts anyone?
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> 


Mime
View raw message