cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergey Beryozkin <>
Subject Re: Thoughts about DOSGI 1.3.2 release
Date Mon, 28 May 2012 17:45:52 GMT
On 28/05/12 18:35, David Bosschaert wrote:
> I can understand that it's a significant refactoring.
> If you stay within the pure Blueprint model (within the spec) you
> shouldn't get bound to Aries. Eclipse Gemini also has an
> implementation.

Sure and there was a proposal on how to get Gemini used under the hood, 
but the issue is how to get both used as needed.

Having DOSGi migrated to Blueprint and CXF 2.6.x would obviously improve 
DOSGi CXF a lot, specifically, its OSGI-'awareness' would increase a lot.

But as I said, there are still quite a few issues in this list:

which IMHO are quite important to get fixed for the users be able to do 
their POCs, before making a big 'leap' forward.

Unfortunately I can not afford spending several weeks on migrating the 
code to Blueprint, testing with Aries & Gemini, etc...Perhaps we will 
get a bit of help from DOSGI CXF users :-)

Cheers, Sergey

> Cheers,
> David
> On 28 May 2012 18:17, Sergey Beryozkin<>  wrote:
>> Hi David
>> On 28/05/12 18:09, David Bosschaert wrote:
>>> Sounds good, Sergey. I'm all for releasing frequently.
>>> One of the things that I think would be good to tackle is to migrate
>>> to OSGi Blueprint (from of the current Spring-based approach). Is that
>>> something that you were thinking of looking at?
>> Not really. Some users would like to use Blueprint but not be bound to
>> Aries. So for me it's a DOSGI 1.4 level issue which will require a
>> significant time investment.
>> Cheers, Sergey
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>>> On 28 May 2012 17:34, Sergey Beryozkin<>    wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>> I'm thinking of starting working toward releasing DOSGI 1.3.2.
>>>> I think I'll spend the next 2 or months on fixing few issues I can find
>>>> some
>>>> time for, given that there's a lot of other CXF/etc work that needs to be
>>>> taken care of.
>>>> I'd like to suggest that the next release will be 1.3.2 as opposed to
>>>> 1.4.0.
>>>> Moving to CXF 2.6.1 at the DOSGI level will be a pretty major effort,
>>>> giving
>>>> that a minimal bundle in CXF 2.6.x has gone.
>>>> It seems that there are still quite a few issues there that are important
>>>> to
>>>> be fixed for the base/simple DOSGI applications to work reliably and
>>>> given
>>>> that 2.5.x branch is still relatively 'young', I'd probably prefer to
>>>> stay
>>>> on 2.5.x (2.5.4 for DOSGI 1.3.2 and might be CXF 2.5.5/2.5.6 for DOSGI
>>>> 1.3.3), simply to make the most of the limited time that I will be able
>>>> to
>>>> spend on DOSGi, before making a major switch to CXF 2.6.x - and hoping by
>>>> that time many of the 'basic' DOSGI features have been fixed...
>>>> Thanks, Sergey

View raw message