cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergey Beryozkin <sberyoz...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Thoughts about DOSGI 1.3.2 release
Date Mon, 28 May 2012 17:51:04 GMT
FYI:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DOSGI-115

The proposed fix will probably work with Gemini straight away :-)

Sergey

On 28/05/12 18:45, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> 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:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&mode=hide&jqlQuery=project+%3D+DOSGI+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+ORDER+BY+updated+DESC
>
>
> 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<sberyozkin@gmail.com> 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<sberyozkin@gmail.com> 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
>>>>>
>>>


-- 
Sergey Beryozkin

Talend Community Coders
http://coders.talend.com/

Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com

Mime
View raw message