<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">That sounds reasonable. Time
permitting, I might try to lend a hand. The only downside I see
that as a developer building an application on this platform using
the OSGi programming model I won't be able to employ JBoss AS 7's
configuration model for my needs. Or am I mistaken in this? Maybe
a custom configuration admin implementation that delegates to
JBoss AS 7's built-in mechanism ...<br>
<br>
On the other hand I do understand why one might be reluctant to
introduce yet another programming model to a wider audience.<br>
<br>
Am 05.09.12 10:36, schrieb Thomas Diesler:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:50470F27.7020704@jboss.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<tt>I agree, that there is value in a modular build. Its tracked
by <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AS7-5494">[AS7-5494] Add
support for a modular AS7 build</a><br>
<br>
It would also allow other projects to decouple from the AS7
release cycle and provide a minimalistic runtime to support
their stuff. Specifically, I'm interested to go back to a more
predictable release cycle for the jbosgi and again include a
standalone runtime with our distribution. The runtime would be
AS7 based, include the osgi subsystem and possibly other
subsystems we integrate with (e.g. naming, transaction, jmx,
web, ...)<br>
<br>
</tt>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/04/2012 12:58 PM, Thomas
Diesler wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5045DEC2.1060502@jboss.com" type="cite">This
probably needs to be a community driven effort. A "product in
its own right" actually triggers an armada of jboss/redhat folks
to do additional work on top of what we put out as a community
project. This would only be done if justified by sufficient
interest. <br>
<br>
A good starting point would be to modify the build such that is
supports configurable subsystems. From a modular service
container perspective it's probably worth to stick with the
standards and use the osgi only profile. <br>
<br>
On 09/03/2012 09:48 PM, Olaf Bergner wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">While I think that JBoss AS 7's
architecture and implementation are <br>
outstanding neither I nor the company I'm working for have a
need for a <br>
JEE container. What we *do* have a need for, though, is a
robust, <br>
performant, flexibel and manageable runtime for deploying our
networked <br>
services in. Having taken a look at JBoss AS 7's Modular
Service <br>
Container, its extension mechanism, its flexibel configuration
model and <br>
the fact that it's based on JBoss Modules I started to think
that a <br>
JBoss AS 7 distribution stripped down to its core just might
fit the bill. <br>
<br>
Beyond creating that minimal distribution itself I think all
it would <br>
take is to add some documentation, especially on how to use
the Modular <br>
Service Container, something I couldn't find *any*
documentation for. <br>
Plus maybe a sample application or two. Provided someone in
the know <br>
volunteered to assist me I would be more than willing to
provide those. <br>
<br>
What do you think? <br>
<br>
Regards, <br>
Olaf <br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
jboss-as7-dev mailing list <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:jboss-as7-dev@lists.jboss.org">jboss-as7-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thomas Diesler
JBoss OSGi Lead
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>