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 Tue, 29 May 2012 11:11:57 GMT
On 29/05/12 08:12, David Bosschaert wrote:
> Migrating to blueprint will also solve
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DOSGI-69 which is a
> long-standing issue that many people want to see resolved.
Agreed. I'd still see this migration as a 1.4-level issue.
I can see 4-5 issues in the list that can help people with getting to 
move forward with DOSGi without requiring a lot of time to spend on 
fixing them, so I'd look at them for 1.3.2

It's a shame I've a little understanding at the moment how Aries works 
under the hood, not to say how Gemini does :-). I'm having some little 
progress with a single patch I just did for Aries though :-)

Having someone who has a deeper understanding of Aries and possibly 
Gemini contributing toward this possible migration would be welcome.

Cheers, Sergey

>
> David
>
> On 28 May 2012 18:51, Sergey Beryozkin<sberyozkin@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> 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


-- 
Sergey Beryozkin

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

Blog: http://sberyozkin.blogspot.com

Mime
View raw message