felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Custine <chris.cust...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Karaf] Switching to blueprint ...
Date Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:15:12 GMT
I think moving to blueprint is great particularly if the r4.2 spec release
is imminent.  It seems like it should be getting close since it has moved to
"public draft" recently, but I am not sure if there is an ETA.  I'm sure
someone here is plugged in to that process  ;-)

Chris Custine
FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com
My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org

2009/4/28 Richard S. Hall <heavy@ungoverned.org>

> Well, if you are going to switch, now seems like the time.
> -> richard
> On 4/28/09 9:45 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>> The past days, I've been working on the blueprint implementation
>> inside Geronimo [1].
>> The spec is still being written so the implementation is not really
>> stable and is still missing a lot of features.
>> However, it's already somewhat usable and as I've hacked Karaf to
>> start using blueprint instead of spring-dm in a branch [2].
>> Tests do not even compile, but I've been able to start the console, so
>> I thought I would talk about it a bit.
>> This raises the question whether we want to switch to blueprint
>> instead of spring-dm.
>> I think we should, and even have to, given that  Spring-DM will switch
>> to support Blueprint at some point in the future too.  Also the
>> blueprint spec is way better than spring-dm wrt to namespace handlers
>> (that are considered dependencies, so we would not have problems with
>> namespace handlers not being available when a bundle is started) and
>> classloading (i think classes loaded for namespace handlers will be
>> loaded from the namespace handler bundle, thus freeing the bundle to
>> import all the namespace handlers packages), though those areas are in
>> flux.
>> If so, we might even want to do that before renaming the packages, as
>> the patch is quite big and would be quite broken after the rename imho
>> ...
>> As for tests, we'd have to switch to something else, which could be
>> junit4osgi from iPojo or pax-exam for example.
>> Feedback welcome.
>> [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/blueprint
>> [2]
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/sandbox/gnodet/karaf-blueprint/

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message