geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <>
Subject Re: OSGI progress
Date Wed, 23 Sep 2009 06:28:15 GMT
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 08:25, 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.
> 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.

OSGi has the following states for bundles:
  * Installed
  * Resolved
  * Started

Resolved means the classes are available and Started means the
activator has been started.  Of course, we have Started > Resolved.
But Resolved might be what you were looking for.

> 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 <>
>> Yes! hope for detail sharing :-)
>> -Rex
>> 2009/9/22 Jack Cai <>
>>> 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 <>
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> running in embedded felix in maven.
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
> --
> Ivan

Guillaume Nodet
Open Source SOA

View raw message