geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jarek Gawor <>
Subject Re: [OSGi] Support for RFC 124?
Date Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:23:25 GMT
Btw, I checked in under a tiny
bit of code that I was playing around with to better understand RFC
124. I'll keep on working and experimenting with it but anyone is
welcome to join. I'm planning to add some of the RFC 124 API
definitions next in order see what it would take to implement these


On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Rick McGuire <> wrote:
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> Folks,
>> Any interest in support for RFC 124, "A Component Model for OSGi"?
>> This is in addition to typical J2EE artifacts that we already support.
>> thanks,
>> dims
> Time, I think, to give this thread a kick.
> There are lots of different aspects to this, so I think we should first make
> an attempt at deciding what the target goal is here.  RFC 124 (aka, the
> "blueprint service") is inherently an OSGi thing, so first we need to
> address what it means to add OSGi to Geronimo.  And, I think, in general,
> this really means "OSGi as a Geronimo application programming model".
> This can have multiple meanings.  One approach, already under discussion in
> the "Whence Geronimo kernel?" thread would be rearchitect the Geronimo
> kernel around OSGi bundles and the OSGi classloading model.  In this mode,
> an application model should be fairly simple to add, though there may be
> some issues of bridging between the OSGi "bundle world" and the JEE
> programming model.  Additions like the blueprint service might be directly
> usable within the Geronimo kernel for assembly and injection.
> Another approach would be to add an OSGi application container to Geronimo.
>  This would allow OSGi/blueprint-based applications to be hosted on
> Geronimo, and there may be some Geronimo services that get exposed to the
> apps, but the apps run in their own separate environment.
> The container approach is, I believe, probably the easier path, but we I
> think we lose a lot of the advantages of the OSGi model in other places.
>  Also, OSGi is working on a number of additional RFCs that will add
> different JEE concepts to the platform.  I'd hate to think that Geronimo
> might need to maintain two versions of each of these pieces, one for the
> OSGi container and one for the non-OSGi world.
> Anyway, I think regardless of the implementation approach, we need to start
> discussing this in terms of "what does it mean to host an OSGi application
> on Geronimo?".  Here are a few questions that immediately come to mind:
> 1.  How are applications deployed?  Is there some higher-level deployment
> model than the bundle level?
> 2.  What services are available Geronimo application environment?  Blueprint
> is certainly one service, what others do we need?
> 3.  How is the config-admin service managed?  Do we need Geronimo console
> access and editting of config admin properties?
> 4.  Are there any bridges from the OSGi world to the JEE world?  For
> example, is is possible to export service registry instances to JNDI?
> I think this is a good starting point for discussing ideas....I'm sure there
> are additional questions that will come up in the discussions.
> Rick

View raw message