karaf-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Blueprint, DS and CDI State of the Art...
Date Wed, 21 Nov 2018 08:22:39 GMT
If you really want to pick a CDI implementation to use in Karaf, I would
advise to look at the CDI RI from Aries.
It appears that the spec has evolved in the right direction, also it's
still very limited in terms of beans lifecycle.
The main problem imho is that the spec does not allow tying the lifecyle of
a CDI bean to the lifecycle of its dependencies.  That's imho, the best way
to deal with the dynamism of the OSGi service registry.

Guillaume

Le mar. 20 nov. 2018 à 20:42, David Jencks <david.a.jencks@gmail.com> a
écrit :

> As I noted previously the OSGI CDI reference implementation is at Apache
> Aries and I believe differs significantly from Guillaume’s implementation
> in philosophy.
>
> David Jencks
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 20, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Ranx <ranx@enjekt.org> wrote:
> >
> > It appears that Fuse 7 is supporting PAX CDI and that changes my
> assessment
> > of all this.
> >
> > The OSGi Alliance has been positively glacial in approving the
> specification
> > (six years now) but that appears to be about to change. Hopefully they
> adopt
> > Guillaume's implementation as the reference standard and when the final
> spec
> > drops a few tweaks are made to PAX CDI for final.
> >
> > I'm not sure why it has taken so long and having CDI with DS for service
> > annotation while also being able to use the standard annotations for
> > internal bundle wiring is long past due.
> >
> > That Red Hat is supporting CDI means I don't have to worry about
> > recommending it to my clients. That it appears that the OSGi Alliance is
> > about to sign off on the standard is even more exciting.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from: http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Karaf-User-f930749.html
>


-- 
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet

Mime
View raw message