cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adrian Trenaman <>
Subject Re: Fun with the survey
Date Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:22:00 GMT
+1 for an osgibus!

----- Original Message -----
From: Johan Edstrom []
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 01:19 PM
To: <>
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 :)
> -- 
> Willem
> ----------------------------------
> Open Source Integration:
> Blog: (English)
> (Chinese)
> Twitter:

Johan Edstrom

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

View raw message