Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 23755 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2009 22:06:36 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Apr 2009 22:06:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 95645 invoked by uid 500); 13 Apr 2009 22:06:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 95553 invoked by uid 500); 13 Apr 2009 22:06:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 95545 invoked by uid 99); 13 Apr 2009 22:06:35 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:06:35 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jgawor@gmail.com designates 209.85.132.250 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.132.250] (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.250) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:06:27 +0000 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d11so1372442and.40 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:06:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6SrYXKn6uyNnSjrVxW3l30SbCwCv/NUZ2g5hMHR2BX4=; b=v+u18m7Nwh+zAOImDdey6Ltwu/QG44zNMlHay9Owfglz6BPR9D2zNREDWSGtWo8xvr YB7JABOA8nVv6YFEcx74AO0ftcQ8eYf7Hz5DlvQ+2b3/p0L9o9SKrCSXM4DGmz6wYbMU i7PEXk2tFI11Uoe/ziVmCiHvjAdlbTmJcFzok= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=iuIKYvO7lNYE8MGeYOrBy3foYd6VVuUQyICqQczwA+jFyyOLtmq1git2GbTBqwogwY zhAMwdFsm27ldyEOPUk6ZpyVf72SqHz4CWaGKJ2I3roLtQOjMb+s6OwbRMkS6sD/tJgI GeTADCt5KRXDRO6P6mvLeHz139ArwzKm3zsok= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.36.8 with SMTP id r8mr882981ibd.44.1239660364302; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:06:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <19e0530f0903170558s2048dd2cy1ca802639fb7c9b5@mail.gmail.com> <49D3462E.70401@gmail.com> <5eb405c70904081023p5b0c82cfoe14c3b11245e0c74@mail.gmail.com> <49E33A2E.50808@gmail.com> <5eb405c70904131317m2b940a40kc79df4c1dd469bb9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:06:04 -0400 Message-ID: <5eb405c70904131506l35760bb8wf2feb613bf2cb9a3@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [OSGi] Support for RFC 124? From: Jarek Gawor To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Either way works for me. First, I would rather stay with the API classes and interfaces defined by the spec (I was working of the draft 3 of the specification). Second, I do like Rick's deep copy constructor. I would like to keep it even if it's not being used/needed now. But we can always add that later. So go ahead and merge my code into yours and put the new code somewhere directly under the sandbox and we'll start working from there. In the mean time, I'll work on some other aspects of the spec while you merge this stuff. Thanks, Jarek On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > I agree that we need to join forces. > Actually, i have started experimenting with xbean-refect after having > seen your code :-) > > If we are going to use generics in the implementation, it may be > easier to use the reflect package implementation classes that i wrote. > Anyway, I think the main difference is that the one Rick wrote allow > deep copy of values with a copy constructor. =A0Rick, have you seen such > a need anywhere in the spec ? =A0While implementing the parser, I > haven't seen the need for it so I wonder if we need to keep that or > not. > The parser has dependencies on those classes, so we need to merge / > refactor here. > > I'm currently working on integrating your code into mine, but we could > do the opposite if you prefer. > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 22:17, Jarek Gawor wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrot= e: >>> Btw, I'm not so sure iPojo is a good candidate for implementing the >>> blueprint service. >>> I've began doing some testing with xbean-reflect and I am able to >>> parse and instanciate very simple beans. >>> See: >>> =A0 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/gnodet/blueprint/= org.apache.felix.blueprint/src/test/java/org/apache/felix/blueprint/WiringT= est.java >>> and the blueprint xml >>> =A0 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/gnodet/blueprint/= org.apache.felix.blueprint/src/test/resources/test-wiring.xml >> >> Since you're not using iPojo now there is no point of having two >> separate efforts of implementing rfc124. So I think we should merge >> into one project. For example, let's take your parser and integrate >> with my (and Rick's) code and go from there. I already experimented >> with xbean-reflect and I think it might work but will need some extra >> modifications. >> >> Jarek >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com >