aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Timothy Ward <timothyjw...@apache.org>
Subject RE: Aries JNDI dependencies
Date Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:36:36 GMT

Hi everyone,

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The JNDI core bundle does not depend on the proxy
or blueprint APIs.

The bundle David is talking about is the JNDI uber bundle, which by definition depends on
everything because it *is* everything. The proxy API is used by the JNDI URL bundle to implement
the osgi:service URL scheme. This spec requires damping, which is exactly the sort of thing
that the proxy bundle is for. The blueprint API is used to implement the blueprint: URL scheme,
which is designed to integrate with blueprint, and so absolutely needs the blueprint API.

I would like to ask people not to be so hasty in assuming that dependencies are unnecessary.
If you want minimal dependencies then you should be consuming the individual bundles and looking
at what they pull in.

In this case we could look at avoiding slf4j, although it seems to be popular and other Aries
bundles use it. I would be a -1 for removing util, proxy or blueprint dependencies from the
JNDI project. The first two because they are a good reuse of existing function, the last because
it's part of a really useful feature. If you want to run in an environment that doesn't provide
those packages then you can always cut back to the JNDI API and core bundles.

Regards

Tim Ward
-------------------
Apache Aries PMC member & Enterprise OSGi advocate
Enterprise OSGi in Action (http://www.manning.com/cummins)
-------------------


> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:08:18 +0100
> Subject: Re: Aries JNDI dependencies
> From: gnodet@gmail.com
> To: dev@aries.apache.org
> 
> Well, the point is that it removes a dependency as it's always
> provided by the JRE.
> I'm far from being a fan of JUL myself, the only way I'm using it is
> when redirecting everything to a nicer backend in pax-logging ;-)
> 
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:05, Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@adobe.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am 16.01.2012 um 10:01 schrieb Guillaume Nodet:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 09:57, Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@adobe.com>
wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> * The SLF4J dependency always drags in at least 2 slf4j bundles. Would
> >>>> it not be better to have the logging go through the OSGi log service?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Or java.util.logging if the capabiilities of the log service are seen
> >> too limited.
> >
> > Oh, please, not ;-)
> >
> > Then rather stick with SLF4J. Thanks.
> >
> > Regards
> > Felix
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> FuseSource, Integration everywhere
> http://fusesource.com
 		 	   		  
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message