geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ivan <xhh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: OSGI progress
Date Wed, 23 Sep 2009 06:47:49 GMT
2009/9/23 David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>

>
> 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 not considered the detailed implmentation,  by intuition, the
Configuration in the old Geronimo Arch is a bundle in OSGI, while starting
the bundle, the bundleActivator will start all the gbean defintions it has.
I know that Configuration is only a gbean, even if it is in running state,
it does not mean that all the sub gbeans are in the running state, maybe, as
Guillanume said, we could think that the resolved state means that the
Configuration GBean itself has been successfully in the running state.

>
>
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?
>
>

   What I mean is that, currently, Geronimo kernel is running in the OSGI
environment, and all those GBeans are running in the kernel.  I would like
to see that the OSGI is Geronimo kernel.  As you said in the comments below,
we might not need a kernel at all :-)

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>
>
>> Yes! hope for detail sharing :-)
>> -Rex
>>
>> 2009/9/22 Jack Cai <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>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
>
>
>


-- 
Ivan

Mime
View raw message