Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of gnodet@gmail.com designates
 209.85.218.227 as permitted sender)
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=nHiuJFJIrhNDD4aD+hBbH9y+Q6DFaQy/7fqz1bQanaZVemt2JMSSm9JGlq/J4oSs81
         kAb5OobRxXREKfOAT94eWX1g9krGH5Rh+nM1YvFUyQN8UK1KJecl5ed5RLe8v1SckKtA
         YRyUnR1/aeaw+3vujGOc9PP7wUgdGmTLxatMw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6AA5DB31-B1C4-42FD-96FE-50EA7793520C@yahoo.com>
References: <DDCF4A74-B69C-433F-B8AF-B0A080779B9B@yahoo.com>
	 <5e7fd1eb0909220055k7467e549if34529a0bc1e55cd@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fbab58220909220232v6713b6d1p31ac6d3685b8422@mail.gmail.com>
	 <45f744e40909222250w5768afb2h63af6584dd9e5284@mail.gmail.com>
	 <6AA5DB31-B1C4-42FD-96FE-50EA7793520C@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:28:15 +0200
Message-ID: <b23ecedc0909222328s10dd14ccsf56fb94283a34483@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: OSGI progress
From: Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 08:25, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:50 PM, Ivan wrote:
>
> After reading some code changes of the geronimo-kenel in the sanbox, I fo=
und
> that we keep the Geronimo kenel as an OSGI service, and each Configuratio=
n (
> or a bundle) will search it and start the configuration as we do in the p=
ast
> 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. =A0AFAICT there is no other built in
> "no-really-start-it" state beyond "started". =A0There 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. =A0You can't get much usefaul data out of it =
until
> its started. =A0Once it is started the classes are available and you can =
find
> out what services (gbeans) are in the configuration and look at their
> attributes. =A0There's a further state of "all gbeans started". =A0The
> configuration manager treats these states as "loaded" and "started"
> So far it seems to work to do something similar in the osgi environment b=
ut
> it doesn't really fit very well yet. =A0I'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 en=
v,
> could we make the Geronimo is an OSGI env?
>
> I don't understand what you are asking here. =A0In the sandbox, geronimo
> plugins are running in an osgi enviroment, and all the classes are loaded
> from osgi bundles. =A0Could 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 w=
e
> decide if its a good idea. =A0IIUC blueprint doesn't publish every bluepr=
int
> bean as an osgi service, but only ones you configure to be published. =A0=
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 architectur=
e
> relatively little where possible to get it to run in osgi, respecting osg=
i
> architecture. =A0So, I am trying to get stuff working with the kernel as =
an
> osgi service, get the deployers working, etc etc. =A0I think after we hav=
e
> done this we will have a much better idea what other work we want to try.
> =A0For instance, we might not need a kernel at all: possibly gbeans can j=
ust
> be osgi services with =A0a 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 -
>>> =A0* 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 O=
SGi
>>> application?
>>>
>>> =A0* If the latter case, will GBean go away?
>>> =A0* 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. =A0This involves running some of the =
geronimo
>>>> server on osgi/felix inside maven. =A0The dependency management system=
 seems
>>>> to work OK at least for starting bundles. =A0I also started doing a li=
ttle bit
>>>> of code cleanup.
>>>>
>>>> I think the next step will be to get the framework server running in
>>>> standalone karaf or felix. =A0Hopefully this will be no harder than ge=
tting it
>>>> running in embedded felix in maven.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ivan
>
>


--=20
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com