geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rex Wang <rwo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: OSGI progress
Date Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:43:56 GMT
2009/9/23 Ivan <xhhsld@gmail.com>

>
>
> 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.
>
>>
>>
> The "Installed/Resolved/Started" is the states of a bundle, not a specific
java bean. You can not re-define what "resolved" mean in your design.

> 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 :-)
>
> Yes. I hope so.

-Rex

> 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