cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Johan Edstrom <seij...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Fun with the survey
Date Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:56:57 GMT
I is still *excited* </borat>

On Sep 29, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:

> 
> Just to clarify (since I think I may have generated too much excitement around 
> this)... :-)
> 
> My thought are more around "fixing" the current ExtensionManagerBus to get all 
> the features working properly with the extension mechanism that is currently 
> in place.   When that works, creating a new implementation of ExtensionManager 
> that would lookup in the OSGi registry  the various extensions should be 
> relatively easy.     Thus, it's not so much an "OSGIBus" as it is making the 
> ExtensionManagerBus something more usable, which would include in an OSGi 
> environment.  
> 
> Longer term, we could then substitute the SpringBus stuff with a new 
> SpringExtensionManager or similar and pretty much get down to one bus, with a 
> couple of managers.   It would hopefully simplify things a bit.  We don't 
> really need 3 bus implementations.  :-)
> 
> Make sense?
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday 29 September 2010 5:22:00 pm Adrian Trenaman wrote:
>> +1 for an osgibus!
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Johan Edstrom [mailto:seijoed@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 01:19 PM
>> To: dev@cxf.apache.org <dev@cxf.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Fun with the survey
>> 
>> +1 on an osgibus, that would be great.
>> 
>> On Sep 28, 2010, at 8:10 PM, Willem Jiang wrote:
>>> On 9/29/10 4:06 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>>> On Monday 27 September 2010 9:44:25 pm Benson Margulies wrote:
>>>>> It looks like our close and personal relationship with Spring
>>>>> continues to really inconvenience very few and serve the majority. I
>>>>> wonder if we would want to invest energy in merely designing some
>>>>> scheme to make Spring more removable to assist some volunteer in
>>>>> working on it?
>>>> 
>>>> Well, this is something I keep thinking about quite a lot latetly.  
>>>> There are several areas where we use Spring and expose spring to the
>>>> user:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 1) Wiring our own bus together
>>>> 
>>>> 2) Providing configuration and namespace handlers and such for the user
>>>> to more easily use CXF with spring
>>>> 
>>>> 3) Using/abusing the spring aop stuff for things like transactions and
>>>> sessions scopes and such
>>>> 
>>>> 4) JMS transport
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I really don't want to touch on #4.  Even the JMS guys say Spring JMS is
>>>> the way to go to get JMS done correctly.
>>>> 
>>>> For #3, we do provide some factories for some of the scopes and such,
>>>> but again, spring does much of that so much better.
>>>> 
>>>> Everything done for #2 there are good API's (that the spring things
>>>> call) and thus can be done programatically.   If someone has a
>>>> different config mechanism, it's not hard to create a new one.
>>>> 
>>>> That really leaves #1.  We DO provide a non-spring version of the bus
>>>> (The ExtensionBus stuff), but it has a bunch of limitations in what it
>>>> can pick up and wire together and such.  Much of the SecPolicy stuff
>>>> won't work for example.   This is something I was THINKING about
>>>> looking at more for 2.4, partially to make things much more OSGi
>>>> friendly where the various modules can be relatively independent
>>>> bundles that an "OSGIBus" could grab via tha OSGi registries and such. 
>>>>  Yea.  Brain is noodling, but hasn't gotten very far yet.
>>> 
>>> +1 for the OSGiBus idea, I saw lots of customer issues about using a
>>> wrong bus configurations in OSGi. We could do some work to make life
>>> easier :)
>> 
>> Johan Edstrom
>> 
>> joed@opennms.org
>> 
>> They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
>> safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
>> 
>> Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://dankulp.com/blog

Johan Edstrom

joed@opennms.org

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither
liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759






Mime
View raw message