ace-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Angelo van der Sijpt <angelo.vandersi...@luminis.eu>
Subject Re: ACE roadmap Jira
Date Tue, 01 Feb 2011 19:29:56 GMT
Hi,

On Jan 30, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote:

> Hello JB,
> 
> The absolute minimum requirement is that we release the sources. I would definitely be
in favor of having a single archive that contains all of them and that can be unpacked and
built with a single command. The result of "building" should at the minimum be a set of OSGi
bundles, but maybe we should also automatically generate some assemblies that can directly
be "run".

I agree we should aim for as few artifacts as possible. On that same note, we might want to
look into reducing the number of bundles too; for instance, we have a number of dedicated
API-bundles which can very well be merged into other ones.

> 
> As binaries, I would like to release two "assemblies", one containing the whole server,
the other containing a target that consists of an OSGi framework and the ACE management agent.
Both must be "unzip and run".
> 
> On 30 Jan 2011, at 7:58 , Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> 
>> regarding the release preparation, I think that we need to clean distribution. I
think that the users are a little lost with the current artifact delivery.
> 
> I would love to hear what confuses users the most right now, and if the idea mentioned
above would help.
> 
>> I'm working of an assembly, embedding Felix/Karaf to provide a runtime deployment
platform.
> 
> You did see the ones we currently have, (ace-target-devserver and ace-target-devgateway)?
> 
> One thing that Angelo is still working on is this one:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-98
> 
> That could replace the current target with a small launcher that, using the OSGi 4.2
launching API can launch any framework you supply, and run it with a management agent. I think
that's the most elegant and simple way of bootstrapping OSGi with ACE.

Work on ACE-98 is slowly moving along. When the launcher target is far enough along (see subtasks),
we should be able to make this the de-facto way for starting a target, and drop the target-devgateway.
We can then choose to release binaries for (a) the 'management agent' bundle, or (b) the roll-you-own
management agent.

> 
> The server now basically runs on a bare bones OSGi framework. Of course you can deploy
a lot of things alongside, and for the developer we do (things like a shell). Ultimately,
the server could also start out as a target and should be provisionable by a different ACE
instance. Of course you then get into the question "who provisions the first provisioning
server" and for that we need this assembly. :)
> 
>> My question is:
>> - do we provide several artifacts (Web UI tarball/zip, file server tarball/zip, etc)
or one providing all modules (one tarball/zip with web UI, etc) ?
> 
> For one, I would not want to release the "file server" at all. It was more or less an
intermediate step to get ACE up and running and not intended for real use.

Agreed; the step from filebased server to 'repository based' server seems to be rather confusing
anyway.

> 
> The server with web UI and the target I would want to release separately as stated above.
> 
>> WDYT ?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Regards
>> JB
>> 
>> On 01/29/2011 01:11 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
>>> Hello JB,
>>> 
>>> On 27 Jan 2011, at 6:45 , Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>> 
>>>> FYI, I created a Jira brainstorming umbrella to define the ACE roadmap:
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-115
>>> 
>>>> The purpose is to kind in mind our discussions and create child tasks
>>>> that we will pick up.
>>> 
>>> My suggestion for implementing a roadmap would be to define versions in
>>> Jira and start assigning issues to them. That way we can use the
>>> "roadmap" feature of Jira to track progress:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
>>> 
>>> So our first release would be 0.8.0 (for example), and we can start
>>> assigning issues to it.
>>> 
>>>> Feel free to complete it.
>>> 
>>> In general I feel we should try to cut our first release relatively
>>> soon, and try to get into a rhythm. Therefore in general I think we
>>> should look at what's fairly stable now and start with that.
>>> 
>>> Another question I have is what we should release. ACE is very modular,
>>> and can be assembled and configured in different ways. On the other
>>> hand, a lot of bundles are related. In short I don't think it makes a
>>> lot of sense releasing bundles one by one. I would be in favor of a
>>> single release of all (stable) bundles.
>>> 
>>> Also, I would like to take the first release as an opportunity to
>>> properly baseline all bundle and package versions, use a version policy
>>> that conforms to the one the OSGi Alliance recommends and only bump
>>> versions when things actually change. That means that our next release
>>> will probably contain bundles and packages that will not all be the
>>> same. This is very similar to the OSGi specification itself, that is
>>> released as for example 4.2 but contains packages with versions like
>>> 1.3, 1.2, 2.1, etc.
>>> 
>>>> @Angelo, I know that you're working hard on unit tests, etc. Feel free
>>>> to append comments concerning next steps around this topic.
>>> 
>>> It's mainly integration tests that still need porting, as described in:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-79
>>> 
>>> From the looks of it, Angelo has already made great progress here! Some
>>> help from a Maven expert would be nice so we can properly hook up the tests.
>>> 
>>> Greetings, Marcel
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> ---------------------------------
>> HomePage
>> http://www.nanthrax.net
>> ---------------------------------
>> Contacts
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> jb@nanthrax.net
>> ---------------------------------
>> OpenSource
>> BuildProcess/AutoDeploy
>> http://buildprocess.sourceforge.net
>> Apache ServiceMix
>> http://servicemix.apache.org
>> -----------------------------------
>> PGP : 17D4F086
> 


Mime
View raw message