cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Wulff <oliver.wu...@sopera.com>
Subject AW: Fun with the survey
Date Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:54:12 GMT
+1 for simplified OSGI integration

Oli
________________________________________
Von: Guillaume Sauthier [Guillaume.Sauthier@objectweb.org]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. September 2010 09:26
An: dev@cxf.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Fun with the survey

a big +1 for OSGi friendlyness :)
--G

Le 30/09/2010 03:22, Willem Jiang a écrit :
> On 9/30/10 5:32 AM, 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?
> It makes sense to create a OSGiExtensionManager for
> ExtensionManagerBus and SpringBus to use :)
>
> With this ExtensionManager, I think we can make OSGiServletTransport
> more easy to use which means the bus could wait the ServletTransport
> Service to start, and we don't need to let the Servlet to init the
> endpoints application context any more.
>
> That is what I'm exciting about.
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
Mime
View raw message