geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: OSGI progress
Date Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:19:54 GMT

On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:47 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:

> I've been looking into how to create an RFC 66 implementation that  
> can deploy to whatever the Geronimo-hosted web container happens to  
> be.  One issue that seems to keep popping up is crossing the bridge  
> between GBeans and OSGi.  A lot (ok, all really) that deal with the  
> server runtime and configuration are GBean instances.  Some of these  
> GBeans will occasionally need a BundleContext to perform OSGi  
> operations.  It would appear that we'd need to have an mechanism to  
> allow a GBean to be injected with a Bundle and/or BundleContext for  
> its hosting configuration.

That's implemented and appears to be working in my osgi sandbox.  One  
of the tasks I envision once the g. framework actually boots up inside  
karaf is converting all the gbeans that use the magic classloader  
attribute to use bundle context instead.

Currently I'm fighting with a classcast exception deep in plexus that  
I managed to avoid a couple weeks ago but its popped up again.  There  
are a lot of jars that need to be bundleized and a bunch of problems  
in the servicemix bundleizations.... I may be making some progress  
however.

thanks
david jencks

> Rick
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:50 PM, Ivan wrote:
>>
>>> After reading some code changes of the geronimo-kenel in the  
>>> sanbox, I found that we keep the Geronimo kenel as an OSGI  
>>> service, and each Configuration ( or a bundle) will search it and  
>>> start the configuration as we do in the past while starting.
>>
>> There's a difference in lifecycles between osgi bundles and  
>> geronimo configurations.
>>
>> OSGI:
>> bundles can be installed, in which case the classes are not  
>> available, or started, in which case the classes are all available  
>> and the bundle activator has been started.  AFAICT there is no  
>> other built in "no-really-start-it" state beyond "started".  There  
>> might be more less-started states I'm not aware of.
>>
>> Geronimo:
>> A Configuration is a gbean.  You can't get much usefaul data out of  
>> it until its started.  Once it is started the classes are available  
>> and you can find out what services (gbeans) are in the  
>> configuration and look at their attributes.  There's a further  
>> state of "all gbeans started".  The configuration manager treats  
>> these states as "loaded" and "started"
>>
>> So far it seems to work to do something similar in the osgi  
>> environment but it doesn't really fit very well yet.  I'm not sure  
>> where we will end up with this.
>>
>>
>>> I have a feeling that, if we do that, Geronimo is still a part of  
>>> OSGI env, could we make the Geronimo is an OSGI env?
>>
>> I don't understand what you are asking here.  In the sandbox,  
>> geronimo plugins are running in an osgi enviroment, and all the  
>> classes are loaded from osgi bundles.  Could you explain more what  
>> you are asking about?
>>
>>> Could we publish GBeans as OSGI service via a  
>>> ConfigurationActivator, or though a GBean-OSGI adapter ?
>>
>> I'm pretty sure we could, but I'd like to get more stuff working  
>> before we decide if its a good idea.  IIUC blueprint doesn't  
>> publish every blueprint bean as an osgi service, but only ones you  
>> configure to be published.  I suspect we may want to, similarly,  
>> only publish some gbeans as osgi services.
>>
>> My current approach is to try to modify the existing geronimo  
>> architecture relatively little where possible to get it to run in  
>> osgi, respecting osgi architecture.  So, I am trying to get stuff  
>> working with the kernel as an osgi service, get the deployers  
>> working, etc etc.  I think after we have done this we will have a  
>> much better idea what other work we want to try.  For instance, we  
>> might not need a kernel at all: possibly gbeans can just be osgi  
>> services with  a few extra attributes.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>>> Thanks !
>>>
>>> 2009/9/22 Rex Wang <rwonly@gmail.com <mailto:rwonly@gmail.com>>
>>>
>>>    Yes! hope for detail sharing :-)
>>>    -Rex
>>>
>>>    2009/9/22 Jack Cai <greensight@gmail.com
>>>    <mailto:greensight@gmail.com>>
>>>
>>>        David, that's exciting work!
>>>
>>>        It'll be great if you can share some more details. There are
>>>        a few puzzles that flow around my mind -
>>>         * Are we just taking OSGi framework in as another plug-in to
>>>        let it host OSGi applications? Or, vice-versa, we are
>>>        converting Geronimo into an OSGi application?
>>>         * If the latter case, will GBean go away?
>>>         * If yes, how much code changes are required? I'd say a  
>>> lot ...
>>>
>>>        -Jack
>>>
>>>
>>>        On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:25 AM, David Jencks
>>>        <david_jencks@yahoo.com <mailto:david_jencks@yahoo.com>> 

>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>            Over the weekend I got my sandbox osgi framework to build
>>>            and generate all the plugins as osgi bundles.  This
>>>            involves running some of the geronimo server on
>>>            osgi/felix inside maven.  The dependency management
>>>            system seems to work OK at least for starting bundles.  I
>>>            also started doing a little bit of code cleanup.
>>>
>>>            I think the next step will be to get the framework server
>>>            running in standalone karaf or felix.  Hopefully this
>>>            will be no harder than getting it running in embedded
>>>            felix in maven.
>>>
>>>            thanks
>>>            david jencks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Ivan
>>
>


Mime
View raw message