4:55 p.m.
First of all I don't think it should be a requirement, you can get a very similar
programming model doing pure OSGi. The alternative I use most is Felix DM:
http://felix.apache.org/site/apache-felix-dependency-manager-getting-star....
You can either use a Java API or annotations (probably we should use annotations). It can
do pretty much everything CDI can, but based on OSGi services.
I'm obviously not against CDI at all, I'm a big fan of it, just think we should be
careful using a framework that will most probably change significantly in the next few
months. But before making that choice, maybe we should include Mathieu and David in this
discussion.
Paul
On Oct 15, 2012, at 23:47 , "Lincoln Baxter, III"
<lincolnbaxter(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Since CDI annotations is a requirement, isn't this something we
will need? What do you recommend as an alternative? What is it missing that would be a
blocker?
Sorry for all the tough questions :) Thanks for your time!!!
~Lincoln
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Paul Bakker <paul.bakker.nl(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It provides several things:
-Publish OSGi services using CDI annotations
-Inject OSGi services in CDI beans using @Inject
-Inject OSGi APIs such as the bundlecontext using @Inject
Other dependency injection solutions for OSGi (Felix DM, Blueprint, Declarative Services
etc.) can already do that using non-cdi annotations. That's why I'm not really
pushing on using this CDI bridge, because functionally it doesn't offer anything extra
(it's still lacking some important features), and it's not finished yet.
In the future this will be very useful however to close the gap between the Java EE and
OSGi programming models.
Paul
On Oct 15, 2012, at 23:33 , "Lincoln Baxter, III"
<lincolnbaxter(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> And this provides CDI injection between bundles/exposed services?
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Paul Bakker <paul.bakker.nl(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Definitely try it, it's very cool. Just to make sure you get the right idea, this
is a prototype for the OSGI-CDI spec (RFC-192) which is still in early development. It is
to be expected that there will be some changes.
>
> Paul
>
>
> On Oct 15, 2012, at 22:28 , "Lincoln Baxter, III"
<lincolnbaxter(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Here is the information about Weld-OSGi.
>>
>> Anyone want to try it out?
>>
>> ~Lincoln
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Lincoln Baxter, III <lincolnbaxter(a)gmail.com>
>> Date: Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:48 AM
>> Subject: In Relation To... Not one, two Weld releases - 1.1.10.Final and
1.2.0.Beta1 !!
>> To: Lincoln Baxter III <lincolnbaxter(a)gmail.com>
>>
>>
>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/NotOneTwoWeldReleases1110FinalAnd120Beta1
>>
>> ---
>> Lincoln Baxter's Droid
>> http://ocpsoft.org
>> "Keep it Simple"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lincoln Baxter, III
>> http://ocpsoft.org
>> "Simpler is better."
>> _______________________________________________
>> forge-dev mailing list
>> forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lincoln Baxter, III
> http://ocpsoft.org
> "Simpler is better."
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
--
Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.org
"Simpler is better."
_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev