aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John W Ross <jwr...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
Date Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:29:52 GMT
I, for one, would certainly have no objections to that.

John

>
> Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
>
> Hi John,
>
> yes, exactly that's what I'm thinking of - sorry for not being clear.
>
> Regards
> Carsten
>
>
> 2014/1/20 John W Ross <jwross@us.ibm.com>
>
> >
> > Hi Carsten,
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're suggesting. My understanding was you wanted to
do
> > some stuff to remove the dependency on Aries Blueprint. My response was
> > that this should have already been done by the referenced defect.
Removing
> > Aries Blueprint, however it's done, will result in the loss of service
> > dependency validation. The only way around that in the pre-R6
> > implementation would be to provide a non-aries-blueprint-based
> > implementation of the ModelledResourceManager. Is that the work you're
> > volunteering to do?
> >
> > John
> >
> > >
> > > Re: Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
> > >
> > > Thanks for the pointer John, I didn't know that (was only using
released
> > > stuff).
> > >
> > > However :) it seems that without Blueprint the features are rather
> > limited
> > > and of course everyone wants all features - so I think this still
makes
> > > sense. Or are there any downsides especially given the fact that
someone
> > (=
> > > me) is volunteering to do the work?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Carsten
> > >
> > >
> > > 2014/1/17 John W Ross <jwross@us.ibm.com>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > The dependency has already been broken in trunk [1]. Is that not
> > > > sufficient? Also, beware the service dependency limitations this
> > introduces
> > > > as discussed in the referenced defect. These will, of course, be
> > mitigated
> > > > somewhat in OSGi RFC 201 for R6 with support for the osgi.service
> > namespace
> > > > in Require/Provide-Capability.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-952?
> > >
> >
> >
>
focusedCommentId=13703354&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-

> >
> > > tabpanel#comment-13703354
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Running Subsystems without Blueprint?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > we would like to run the subsystems implementation without
Blueprint.
> > > > It's
> > > > > not a matter whether Blueprint is good or not and I don't want to
> > start a
> > > > > thread about that :). The main reason are a) we want to have
> > Subsystems
> > > > > running as soon as possible and with as less dependencies as
possible
> > b)
> > > > we
> > > > > can't ship Blueprint with our products (and again this decision
is
> > not
> > > > > caused by technical reasons)
> > > > >
> > > > > Now if I look correctly, the only bundles requiring Blueprint are
the
> > > > > application.utils and application.modeller. Naive looking it
should
> > be
> > > > > straight forward to migrate these to use an Activator and
register
> > the
> > > > > services by hand.
> > > > >
> > > > > My question is now, if I would provide the patches, is there
interest
> > in
> > > > > applying them?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Carsten
> > > > > --
> > > > > Carsten Ziegeler
> > > > > cziegeler@apache.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carsten Ziegeler
> > > cziegeler@apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message