On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Tatu Saloranta <tsaloranta_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Richard Wallace <rwallace1979_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Anyways, even if the Jersey OSGi integration isn't perfect I don't
>> think you should throw the baby out with the bath water with the
>> jersey-bundle jar and remove all the manifest headers.
>
> I agree. For other projects I'm involved with, OSGi headers are added
> even if services-introspection isn't available: you can still
> instantiate implementation directly, or using injection-dependency
> framework.
>
>> I'm also curious if you guys ever tried something like is mentioned in
>> this blog <http://gnodet.blogspot.com/2008/05/jee-specs-in-osgi.html>.
>> I know it was brought up on the list before, but it doesn't seem like
>> anything came of it. If you'd like I can try patching Jersey and see
>
> For me the best suggestion (from comments there was) using a simple
> OSGi-services based solution. But that needs at least de facto
> standard between implementations of specific standard; and ideally a
> standard from within JSR in question.
> With Stax, for example, I did implement OSGi services based
> alternative included in Stax2 extensions (so far implemented by
> Woodstox and Aalto), and that was rather straight-forward. But the
> next step (settling on one approach, standardizing it) is the hard
> part.
>
Well, I think it would be nice to at least get something going for
Jersey. After that we can figure out how to get it standardized and
get other implementations using it - let's just take it one step at a
time. :)
As I said, I'm about to head out on vacation but I'll take a look at
it in more detail when I get back. Which comment is it that you're
talking about, the one from Christian Schneider? Can you provide
links to the work you did for Stax?
Thanks,
Rich