A new Early Access Draft has been published at OSGi that contains 3 RFCs that are currently being discussed in the Enterprise Expert Group.
Blueprint Transactions (RFC 164)
This RFC focuses on how to add declarative transaction support to the OSGi Blueprint standard.
Portable Java Contracts (RFC 180)
OSGi has always been very outspoken about versioning Java packages (for more info see the Semantic Versioning white paper: http://www.osgi.org/wiki/uploads/Links/SemanticVersioning.pdf) however, what version to use for APIs defined by JavaEE has been unclear. While many people have been talking about these APIs in terms of the JavaEE versions (e.g. Servlet 2.5, Servlet 3.0) these version numbers don't always match with the Semantic Versioning ideas that OSGi promotes. For example, with Semantic Versioning you would only increase the major version if you are breaking backward compatibility. When Servlet 3.0 came out of the JCP it did actually not break compatibility with 2.5, but still the major version was increased. In the end the various OSGi-enabled application server implementors used different versioning schemes for JavaEE packages, which made it unclear how to use these in a portable way from OSGi. This RFC aims at addressing this issue in a way that is both natural to people familiar with the JavaEE version numbers as well as being able to cope with the various package version numbers used in the OSGi capable Application Servers.
REST Management Interface (RFC 182)
In the context of Cloud Computing, REST is becoming the dominant way of accessing and controlling remote applications running in the cloud. This RFC defines a remote management interface for OSGi bundles over REST and defines both JSON as well as XML data bindings.
You can find the Early Access Draft here: http://www.osgi.org/News/20121011
Remember that these drafts are not final - if you have any feedback, let us know either via bugzilla (http://www.osgi.org/bugzilla) or via the osgi-dev mailing list: http://www.osgi.org/MailLists
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment