Details
Major Description
The type org.apache.aries.blueprint.container.BlueprintContainerImpl exists as a type in both blueprint core and blueprint noosgi. The latter is intended to provide ex-OSGi-container capability in the style of a spring container.
This is useful in unit test contexts where the osgi details such as service references and cm integration can be quite nicely substituted. However the fact that these containers have the same fully qualified name is an issue especially when testing Camel routes using the camel-test-blueprint API which depends on blueprint core, meaning you end up with a classpath conflict.
In any case it is a dodgy practice that these distinct containers should have the same fully qualified type name.
Either (a) one should make the names distinct or (b) 'fold' the noosgi variant into blueprint core and provide a container factory of some kind.
I am sensible of the issue of run time container dependencies, so it would seem that (a) might be the most expedient, however (b) is the most desirable from an architectural point of view.