When I first started looking at OSGi I was under the impression that you could just build a JAR and as-long as it had a manifest file, you could deploy it in a OSGi container. I imagined building my modules in a classic way (maven), and maybe use some plugin or something of the sort to write the manifest, I could then have my module that would basically be a standalone application communicating with other modules through OSGi.
Further reading about OSGi, I'm beginning to see more examples of it being used at a more low-level and basically replacing dependency injection and providing cross-cutting concern services like logging. And seems that using things like hibernate or others, is a problem... (or maybe I'm just missing something).
At least for me, I don't really see the point of having a such fine-gained level of modularity and integration to OSGi, I would much rather have a separate modules, each one of them having its own set of technologies and frameworks, and possibly a web resources and persistence layer. Is this achievable with OSGi? If yes, can you point me in the right direction, examples etc.?
edit, added some more details of how I'm trying to use OSGi:
I'm just envisioning the possibility of having a more than one-class module, that might have a more higher-level responsibility.
Like say agenda module. In this case I want to have things like, persistence of the events, add events, list events with filters, etc...
This agenda might have several internal classes, and might even need a persistence layer. So I would like to use something like Guice to DI those classes, and some JPA to persist my data.
I can understand that some X-cutting concerns like server or logging can have a bundle, but the data model is specific to the agenda bundle. So I think my question was at the end What is and what is not possible to do inside a bundle? And what should and shouldn't be done inside as a general practice?
Thanks!
Mauricio
You can use OSGi without forcing any dependencies on OSGi on the application code. However, since OSGi provides modularity, the middleware (your layers) need to have some knowledge of OSGi. The problem is that in a modular world you want to hide implementation details, that is the whole purpose. However, things like Spring and Hibernate tend to assume the classpath has no boundaries and they run head on into the fences. Fortunately, more and more middleware is becoming prepared for this, I heard Hibernate now has an effort and JPA is also available in OSGi.
OSGi is many things to many people, and you can almost pick and choose what parts of it you want to use:
Do you have a plain library that doesn't use any other dependencies? Sweet, just put up a minimal MANIFEST.MF listing the public packages, use maven to build your JAR and you're done.
Do you have dependencies? Same as (1), you just add the imported packages in your manifest.
Do you need to perform some initialization? Write an Activator, and mention it in your manifest.
Services? Just put the dependencies and descriptions of those in XML files and add them in the manifest.
And so on - just use the level where you are comfortable.
On the other hand, if you want to do web applications you really need to consider the architectural interplay between OSGi, the libraries you use, your application manager and the servlet/jee/whatever container. At what level will OSGi reside? In a general sense, there are OSGi->container->app, container->OSGi->app and container->app->OSGi solutions, and each has their own idiosyncrasies.
Concerning building with maven, you can use the Maven-Bundle-Plugin it helps you to build OSGi bundles without having to write the manifest on your own. All the required meta information will be in your POM.
Dependency injection can be achieved on top of the module layer. One possible solution would be Declarative Services which enables you to inject via an XML description or code annotations. It strongly reflects the dynamic nature of OSGi Services (dynamic binding unbinding of services).
The alternative is Blueprint which is based upon spring and features a very similar syntax. One key feature is that it can abstract the nature of binding and unbinding of services. If you think about using Spring, use Blueprint.
OSGi only implies how you structure your modules. You get a well defined graph of module interactions (who imports/exports a package? Who exports Services and who uses it?)
therefore you can build an enterprise architecture on top of it by building cohesive bundles for every task.
OSGi is sometimes referred to as a service-oriented architecture for the JVM. Looking at bundles as modular units that provide services helps define the right granularity: you'll usually have API bundles which are just here to provide java packages that define APIs, service bundles that provide implementations of these APIs, and utility/auxiliary bundles that provide the cross-cutting services that you mention.
You can use some dependency injection frameworks on top of OSGi, but from my experience (with Apache Sling and Adobe CQ5) keeping things simple is often better. The OSGi Service Component Runtime and Configuration Admin provide all I need to manage services, dependencies and configurations, especially if you design your system for that from the beginning.
You can find a bit more about our experience with OSGi in designing Adobe CQ5 in my "tales from the OSGi trenches" slides at http://www.slideshare.net/bdelacretaz/tales-from-the-osgi-trenches-2012-short-form-edition - that might help get a better feel for how OSGi is used in building complex systems.
Related
I'm looking to create a Java 'library' (JAR) that can be used within other projects, but I'd like my library to be extensible. I'm after something OSGi-esque, where my library has 'extension points' that other JARs can hook into. The thinking is that my library will have a core set of methods that will be called by the projects it's used in, but the exact implementation of these methods might vary based on the project/context.
I've looked into OSGi (e.g. Equinox), but I'm not sure it can be used in the way I'm after. It seems to be geared towards standalone apps rather than creating a library.
What would be the best way of achieving this? Can OSGi be used in this way, and if not are there frameworks out there that will do this?
I hope all that's clear - I have a clear idea of what I want, but it's hard to articulate.
OSGi is great, but I don't think that this is what you need. By using OSGi (-Services), you force the user of your library to use an OSGi environment, too.
I think as #Peter stated, you can do this by simply extending classes of your library in the specific project / context.
But in case you want to use OSGi, there is a simple way to achieve this. It's called Bundle Fragments. This way you can create a bundle and extend a so-called Host-Bundle", i.e. your library, without altering the original library. A popular use case for this is if you have platform specific code in your bundles.
What you are naming a Java library is named "Bundle" in OSGi context.
OSGi Bundle is a JAR file with some special Meta-Information in its MANIFEST.MF file. Now, every OSGi Bundle have either Exported-Packages or Imported-Packages.
Through Export-Packages Manifest header, you can show what all packages you are exporting.. And your other project can simply add the package it wants to use from them to its Import-Packages..
Here's an example: -
Bundle A Manifest: -
Export-Packages: com.demo.exported;
Bundle B Manifest: -
Import-Packages: com.demo.exported;version=(1.0.0, 2.0.0]
This way your bundle B (A different project) can call the methods from the class in the package that it imported from Bundle A..
Now, the version you see in the import-package, is just to show what all package version can it accept.. You can have 2 bundles with two different implementation of some interfaces and provide this package in two different version.. Both will be available..
Till now, I was talking about Static data-types..
You can also have your services exposed dynamically through Declarative Service.. In this case you will have to define one XML file (Component Definition) where you show what all services your Bundle will expose.. And in the other bundle, you can again define another XML, to show what all services it requires..
These are called, Provided Services and Referenced Services..
I think this will give you a little idea about what can be done.
And if I am wrong somewhere in interpreting your problem please specify the same..
*NOTE: - And of course OSGi is used for creating independent Bundles, that can be re-used in other projects.. They bring Modularity to your project..
As others have mentioned, you don't need OSGi or any framework for this. You can do this my employing patterns like the template method pattern or the strategy pattern. There are several other patterns for dynamically modifying/extending functionality, but these seem to fit your description most. They do not require any framework.
The benefit you would get from a framework like OSGi would be that it would manage the wiring for you. Normally, you'll have to write some code that glues your libraries and the extensions together - with a framework like OSGi, this will not be automated with minimal overhead (in case of OSGi, the overhead is some entries in the JAR-manifest).
I'm writing a big Red5 Java application for the web.
Red5 a Flash Media Server alternative that is java based and is written with the spring framework.
I want to have many versions of my application online, each with different behaviors and different classes enabled or disabled.
I'm looking for a way to convert my code into modules based code that will allow me to remove/add modules/features from the main application.
I know about OSGI http://www.springsource.org/osgi but it says that it needs a SpringSource dm server and I have no idea how it's gonna work together in red5 and it's seems very complicated to fully understand.
I don't have a good knowledge of spring framework in general, i work with it db-related and that's it. red5 uses it more extensively.
so can anyone please make any sense from this information ? is there something that can be done to divide my code to modules ?
any information regarding the issue would be greatly appreciated.
My preferred method of dealing with this kind of situation is Dependancy Injection (DI). Spring has a DI capability built in, for which a tutorial is easy to find online. However, Spring's DI is not as good, for many reasons, as that provided by Guice, which I would highly recommend. (The main advantage of Guice over Spring's DI in my opinion is type safety.)
DI is basically a mechanism for replacing class implementations at runtime. Rather than hard code dependancies into classes (by having a class construct other classes directly for example) you code them to have their dependant classes passed to them in their constructors. The DI framework will then pass the correct instances at runtime according to the configuration. Spring configuration can be done via annotations or an XML file, Guice uses a subclass of com.google.inject.AbstractModule.
So you could use different configuration files for the different instances of your application, and have them provide different sets of features for activation, or indeed different implementations of the same feature. If you set up the application to use this technique then the only thing that need differ between instances is a single configuration file.
I'm writing a Java API for several clients, and would internally like to use Spring and it's several features, but I don't want to expose to the client my dependencies.
Is this possible?
So if my client uses a different version of spring would they be insulated from my internal Spring dependencies.
If so, would my spring dependencies be bundled internally inside my jar? As well as would a custom class loader be required by my client application?
I have heard you can use this through OSGI bundles, but I'm wondering if this would satisfy my requirement.
The clients of my API wouldn't be OSGI enabled or we have no current environment that utilizes OSGI bundles.
It is not really feasible, or desirable to do so. Why would you want to "hide" the dependencies? Would you also want to hide a dependency on whatever logging package you may be using (for example)?
If you have the dependencies in your implementation, then they are best published as it will cause a lot less grief on the part of users of your API since they will know what conflicts may exist before they even attempt to use your code.
Don't forget, your users are actually developers and I am sure that they would rather be aware of any landmines or requirements up front.
Edit - Regarding OSGi:
OSGi will definitely take care of your conflicting dependencies issues, but it also would rely on deploying in an OSGi environment, which you haven't mentioned is the case for your clients. In addition, it is still not recommended to "hide" those dependencies in a bundle. The very nature of OSGi allows those conficting depencies to cooexist in the same application.
I'm writing a server application which makes use of external modules. I would like to make them to be upgradeable without requiring server restart. How do I do that? I've found OSGi but it looks very complicated and big for my task.
Simple *.jar files are ok, but once they are loaded, I suppose, I cannot unload them from VM and replace with another version on-the-fly.
What approach can you suggest?
It seems like OSGi is exactly what you're asking for. It can be complex, but there are ways to deal with that. Some of the complexity can be mitigated by using SpringDM or something similar to handle the boilerplate tasks of registering and consuming services in the runtime. Annotation-driven service registration and dependency injection really reduces the amount of code that needs to be written.
Another way to reduce complexity is to deploy the bulk of your application in a single bundle and only deploy the parts that need to be modular into their own bundles. This reduces your exposure to registering and using services from other bundles in the runtime as well as reducing the complexity of deployment. Code running within a bundle can use other code in the same bundle just as in a standard Java app - no need to interact with the OSGi runtime. The opposite of this approach is to break up your application into lots of discrete bundles that export well-defined services to other bundles in the system. While this is a very modular approach, it does come with extra complexity of managing all those bundles and more interaction with the OSGi runtime.
I would suggest taking a look at the book "OSGi in Action" to get a sense of the issues and to see some decent samples.
It would at least require you to define your custom classloader... I don't see how can this be simpler than just using Felix, Equinox, Knoplerfish or any open source Osgi runtime to do the task.
Maybe SpringDM is simpler...
What you're going for is definitely possible. I believe that you can unload classes from memory by loading them in a separate ClassLoader and then disposing that ClassLoader. If you're not wanting to go all out and use OSGI, I'd recommend something like JBoss Microcontainer (http://www.jboss.org/jbossmc) or ClassWorlds (http://classworlds.codehaus.org/). It's not too terribly difficult to write something like this from scratch if your needs are specialized enough.
Hope this helps,
Nate
If you follow the ClassLoader route (is not that difficult, really), I suggest each module to be packaged in its own jar, and use a different ClassLoader to read each jar. that way, unloading a module is the same as "discarding" the ClassLoader.
OSGi is not so complicated - using PAX runner with maven worked as a breeze.
Or implement your own ClassLoader and set it to JVM :
java -Djava.system.class.loader=com.test.YourClassLoader App.class
I'm building a J2EE application in which I want to allows plugins. I'm fairly convince of the goodness of IoC framework, and so the application will have one to manage services.
Now, I want to allows plugins to be added as simple JAR dropped in the classpath + perhaps a simple configuration file to edit to activate them, in no way something looking like Spring XML config files.
Most of the plugin architecture will be base around strategy/pipeline/chain of command patterns: for example the best plugin for an action is chosen by strategy, several plugins add filtering actions to an user input thanks to a pipeline, and so one.
So, I want to be able to:
define service interfaces in the core application,
set-up core implementation for extensible services with the chosen pattern in the main application,
let third party plugins register themselves in these hooks.
The first 2 points are quite easy, with or without IoC. The last one seems more complex without support at the IoC container level, or at least there is a lot of plumbing to do (how to manage classpath/sevice discovery, how to manage service orders in pipeline when the context change (new plugins), how to manage service overriding, etc).
I do know that Tapestry5 is great in that regards[1], but I can't find anything really relevant for Spring and Guice. And my company is more a String/Guice one than a T5 one (well, if I'm able to show that it's the best solution...)
So I'm wondering:
if I missed some obvious documentation;
if my requirement are so specials;
if an IoC container is not the right tool for that, and I should look for OSGi or something else.
Thanks for any tips !
[1] http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry5.1/tapestry-ioc/configuration.html
I'm not sure how this would work with exactly what you're looking to do, but Guice's basic mechanic for handling plugins is Multibindings. How you handle discovery of plugins is up to you, but there are a variety of choices including scanning the classpath for implementations of plugin interfaces, having plugins provide a Module that adds their implementation(s) to the multibinder(s), using a config file that lists the plugin implementation classes, etc.
As the link mentions, you'd need OSGi if you need plugins to be addable at runtime with no restart.
Have you considered having a look at the Java EE 6 solution - CDI, implementation is named Weld based on JBoss Seam - which might be useful?
Once you start dropping in jars and their dependencies and then go though a couple of iterations of this with different plugins and different dependency versions, then you will start to feel the pain that many "application host containers" succumb to.
One possible solution to this problem is OSGi, although I did note a Tapestry blog highlighting the pitfalls of the OSGi approach:
http://blog.tapestry5.de/index.php/2010/01/19/tapestry-ioc-modularization-of-web-applications-without-osgi/