karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott England-Sullivan <sully6...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Adding Webconsole Plugin for SCR
Date Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:30:30 GMT
Wow, and I am the SCR proponent around here and missed that. (doh!)

I haven't checked to see if the plugin provided by Felix actually works as
a DS component would be expected to.  I can take a look at that to verify
if it was written that way and to see how it is resolving which should help
drive how to proceed.


On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:02 AM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>wrote:

> I wonder i we're asking the right question here.  We have something we
> want to "turn on" when a set of n other things are present.  We're talking
> bundles which don't work that way.  A more friendly model is DS services
> with mandatory references.  If we say that the n other things are services
> rather than bundles, and the thing we want  to turn on is also a service,
> then we can use DS to automatically do the detection and wiring and service
> creation/registration for us.
>
> If we installed a small bundle or two with a feature, that couldn't
> resolve until some other bundle(s) were also installed, would that be a
> problem?  (or used dynamic import :-(((( )
>
> david jencks
>
> On Jul 25, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Scott England-Sullivan wrote:
>
> > Do you see the capability feature extension being able to handle the case
> > where say the web console feature s installed and then you add the event
> > admin feature, which the pax-web-runtime has an optional dependency on.
>  If
> > you currently install event admin after web console you get a big nasty
> > stack trace in the console window.
> >
> > I guess what I would hope to avoid is feature soup.  It would be very
> nice
> > to be able to define all the dependencies and capabilities of SCR under
> the
> > SCR feature.   Then depending on the features that are installed in
> > addition to SCR, management and/or web console, those SCR "capabilities"
> > would be installed.
> >
> > Make sense?
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Ioannis Canellos <iocanel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> definitely +1; nevertheless I still think we can "marry" Achims
> >>> proposal together with this capability think; don't you think?
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course, I think that these 2 ideas are complimentary.
> >>
> >> --
> >> *Ioannis Canellos*
> >> *
> >> FuseSource <http://fusesource.com>
> >>
> >> **
> >> Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com
> >> **
> >> Twitter: iocanel
> >> *
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Scott England-Sullivan
> > ----------------------------------
> > FuseSource
> > Web:     http://www.fusesource.com
> > Blog:     http://sully6768.blogspot.com
> > Twitter: sully6768
>
>


-- 
-- 
Scott England-Sullivan
----------------------------------
FuseSource
Web:     http://www.fusesource.com
Blog:     http://sully6768.blogspot.com
Twitter: sully6768

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message