I'd like to see an example in action before I commit myself but so far I don't see any problems with this.  I assume you have already or will soon verify this doesn't cause problems with the tck :-)

I wonder if a package name with "osgi" in it somewhere would be more appropriate?

There are some specs (jacc for instance) that use a system property to figure out what to create.  I've always thought this was a less than brilliant idea and wonder if we can do something similar for those.  I also wonder if there is a way to generalize the osgi method so it might work in some non-osgi environments.  I'm looking forward to seeing what you have in mind.

david jencks

On Apr 16, 2008, at 8:20 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
In the past months, I've been working on making the specs jars from Geronimo working in an OSGi environment.
All these jars have been published and work great :-)
However, lots of these spec jars define factories (stax, saaj for example) that use the META-INF/services/ discovery mechanism to find an implementation of the spec and load it.  This mechanism does not fit well in OSGi (really, it does not), mainly because usually, the classloader containing the spec jar will not contain the implementation.
I'd like to work on these spec jars so that they will contain an OSGi BundleActivator that would change the behavior of these factories when deployed in an OSGi environment (without changing the behavior in other case).  The idea is that the activator would scan OSGi bundles when they are started to find META-INF/services and populate a map that would be used by the factory when creating an object before using the standard mechanism.

The only real difference compared to what we currently have would be the addition of a package named org.apache.geronimo.specs.stax (for example) that would contain the needed classes (i suppose two classes), and the modification of the factories to delegate to one of these class before using the standard behavior (the class would do nothing if not deployed in an OSGi environment).
Has anyone any objection with such an enhancement in the specs jar ?

Guillaume Nodet
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/