cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Demetris <>
Subject Re: Integrating JAX-RS runtime into DOSGi
Date Sat, 22 Aug 2009 06:38:57 GMT

Ok - for whoever will actually read this email - sorry it's late so my 
previous email
may be a bit confusing.
The project I mentioned (included the link) and the Apache CXF 
Distributed OSGi seem to
share similarities but the person who is working on that MS thesis is 
not really making
a strong case for his work to differentiate it from RFC 119 and its 
implementation. That's
why I was asking whether these are two different projects and apparently 
they are.

My other two questions were clear:
Apache CXF DOSGi is the RFC 119 implementation. I remember reading about 
that RFC
and its early draft release last August - can someone tell me when the 
implementation in CXF
(release 1) began?

Thanks - I need sleep.

Demetris wrote:
> After looking at the project I mentioned - here is the article here on 
> their web site:
> (

> it seems that the similarities between that MS thesis and this project 
> are a few. In the
> article they mention that "*Apache CFX .. *This is the closest one 
> with this thesis project,
> yet some significant differences maybe found as we go through deep to 
> compare" but they
> don't really mention these diffs. So these are two separate projects.
> Apache CXF DOSGi is the RFC 119 implementation. I remember reading 
> about that RFC -
> can someone tell me when the implementation in CXF begun?
> Thanks
> Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>> Hi
>> Have a look here please
>> cheers, Sergey
>> Demetris G wrote:
>>> Hey Sergei and Josh
>>> Is the DOSGi you are referring in the essay of an email below the  
>>> Masters thesis I read once (and it became an open source branch of 
>>> an  apache project) or is this a separate design?
>>> We worked on a design calked p2pSOA the connected distributed OSGi  
>>> containers over p2p technologies while exposing the endpt bundles 
>>> as  web services. So I am fairly interested in your discussion - I 
>>> just  want a quick clarification so I can position your work in my 
>>> mind.  Thanks
>>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 12:28 PM, "Sergey Beryozkin"  
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> Hi Josh
>>>> Can you please let me know if JAXB is being used for your JAX-RS  
>>>> endpoints ?
>>>> I've spotted that for HTTP Service based JAX-RS endpoints no  
>>>> AegisProvider is being set - I'would actually like JAXB being used  
>>>> by default for JAXRS endpoints which will be consistent with the  
>>>> expectations of JAX-RS users in general - but I'd like to confirm  
>>>> first that JAXB is working ok in your case...
>>>> thanks, Sergey
>>>>> Sergey,
>>>>> Thanks again for the detailed documentation you've provided in 
>>>>> this  thread.
>>>>> I was able to easily convert from JAX-WS to JAX-RS, which (I 
>>>>> think)  will
>>>>> make our lives even easier.  Once we've got the ability to expose 
>>>>> a  single
>>>>> service with both of these frontends, I'll make use of that as well.
>>>>> I agree that the jaxrs.resource property is no longer needed, as  
>>>>> you can
>>>>> simply register jaxrs resources as a dosgi services.
>>>>> Josh
>>>>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Sergey Beryozkin
>>>>> <        
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>           Hi,
>>>>>> I've applied your patch and I've completed the initial 
>>>>>> integration  of
>>>>>> JAX-RS into DOSGi RI. As it often happens I underestimated a bit
>>>>>> long it would take me to do it :-) but I'm quite happy now with 

>>>>>> what has
>>>>>> been done so far.
>>>>>> I haven't got a chance to write JAX-WS system tests yet - I was 
>>>>>> a  bit
>>>>>> constrained in time but judging from the code you did JAXWS/ 
>>>>>> databindings
>>>>>> should be working nicely now - please feel free to add a system 

>>>>>> test, or
>>>>>> either of us will do it asap.
>>>>>> Now, the property names have actually changed and differ from  
>>>>>> those you
>>>>>> provided in the patch. As David noted, it was recommended that DOSGI
>>>>>> providers would use reverse domain names as prefixes to their custom
>>>>>> configuration types, such as 'pojo' in case of DOSGI RI.  
>>>>>> Furthermore,
>>>>>> 'pojo' was a bit constraining in that it did not reflect the 
>>>>>> fact  that
>>>>>> say SOAP or RS services were supported. Additionally, the DOSGI 

>>>>>> way is

View raw message