8:11 a.m.
Folks,
Ideally, we would support calling to the API from extensions. However, this is currently a
tricky proposition due to weak service ordering and dependency management of the kernel.
Calling to the API from portlets is a non-issue because all the services are made
available by the portal context by the time portlets are ready to execute code.
While we might decide to eschew support of calling to the API from extensions, we need to
address the REST use case and solve the issue of making sure that all the proper services
are started and available when the REST component of the API is made available to users
(which will probably not call to the API from a portal context). We therefore need to come
up with a solution to this issue.
Ideas? :)
Cordialement / Best,
Chris
==
Principal Software Engineer / JBoss Enterprise Middleware Red Hat, Inc.
Follow GateIn: http://blog.gatein.org / http://twitter.com/gatein
Follow me: http://metacosm.info/metacosm / http://twitter.com/metacosm
8:18 a.m.
actually the life cycle begin/end is triggered by the rest invocation stack automatically
since it is integrated with the kernel.
so normally it should work ok out of the box.
On Jul 13, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Christophe Laprun wrote:
Folks,
Ideally, we would support calling to the API from extensions. However, this is currently
a tricky proposition due to weak service ordering and dependency management of the kernel.
Calling to the API from portlets is a non-issue because all the services are made
available by the portal context by the time portlets are ready to execute code.
While we might decide to eschew support of calling to the API from extensions, we need to
address the REST use case and solve the issue of making sure that all the proper services
are started and available when the REST component of the API is made available to users
(which will probably not call to the API from a portal context). We therefore need to come
up with a solution to this issue.
Ideas? :)
Cordialement / Best,
Chris
==
Principal Software Engineer / JBoss Enterprise Middleware Red Hat, Inc.
Follow GateIn: http://blog.gatein.org / http://twitter.com/gatein
Follow me: http://metacosm.info/metacosm / http://twitter.com/metacosm
_______________________________________________
gatein-dev mailing list
gatein-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/gatein-dev
3:22 a.m.
I'm not sure this is such a huge issue... for service creators just documenting which
services need to be bootstrapped earlier should be enough. Other way is to just create
some service with all needed dependencies and force people doing extensions to rely on it.
Bolek
On Jul 13, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Christophe Laprun wrote:
Folks,
Ideally, we would support calling to the API from extensions. However, this is currently
a tricky proposition due to weak service ordering and dependency management of the kernel.
Calling to the API from portlets is a non-issue because all the services are made
available by the portal context by the time portlets are ready to execute code.
While we might decide to eschew support of calling to the API from extensions, we need to
address the REST use case and solve the issue of making sure that all the proper services
are started and available when the REST component of the API is made available to users
(which will probably not call to the API from a portal context). We therefore need to come
up with a solution to this issue.
Ideas? :)
Cordialement / Best,
Chris
==
Principal Software Engineer / JBoss Enterprise Middleware Red Hat, Inc.
Follow GateIn: http://blog.gatein.org / http://twitter.com/gatein
Follow me: http://metacosm.info/metacosm / http://twitter.com/metacosm
_______________________________________________
gatein-dev mailing list
gatein-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/gatein-dev
4680
days inactive
4681
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Boleslaw Dawidowicz -
Christophe Laprun -
Julien Viet