karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bengt Rodehav <be...@rodehav.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Create "Karaf Features" sub-project
Date Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:48:55 GMT
As a Karaf user I like the idea that JB proposes although I understand that
it might be hard to implement. I think that in order to externalize the
feature descriptors the feature mechanism must be stable in itself. I think
that is a requirement even for other projects to provide Karaf feature
descriptors. I also think it makes sense not to version the feature
mechanism together with Karaf - it should be a common descriptor format
that Karaf and others can depend on.

If not, then I think Guillaume, Ioannis and Freeman are rigth - it wouldn't
work. But, if possible, I would suggest:

a) Break out the feature mechanism into its own sub project with its own
versioning.
b) Try to stabilize the feature mechanism so that others can use it. At a
minimum minor version updates should be backwards compatible and major
version updates should be rare and announced.

/Bengt



2012/10/18 Freeman Fang <freeman.fang@gmail.com>

> Yeah, I'm with Guillaume and Ioannis here.
> -------------
> Freeman(Yue) Fang
>
> Red Hat, Inc.
> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
> Web: http://fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com/
> Twitter: freemanfang
> Blog: http://freemanfang.blogspot.com
> http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1473905042
> weibo: http://weibo.com/u/1473905042
>
> On 2012-10-18, at 下午4:14, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that's also my fear.  If we need to have a separate definition for
> > each karaf version, I'm not really sure there's a huge win in
> externalizing
> > those from the karaf branches.
> > Maybe that's not too much the case between 2.2 and 2.3, but I kinda fear
> > 2.3 / 3.0 need a lot of changes, even in some projects themselves.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Ioannis Canellos <iocanel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> The idea seems good at first glance, but there are things that we need
> >> consider.
> >>
> >> In many cases a feature descriptor is not portable between major Karaf
> >> versions, and it also happens that it breaks between minor versions.
> >>
> >> Even from Karaf 2.2.x to Karaf 2.3.x I've seen third party features
> break.
> >> So it may seem that most features could decoupled from the underlying
> >> version of Karaf, but practically this is not always the case.
> >>
> >> An example: In the spring feature case, we also have the spring
> deployer.
> >> Where will the source of spring deployer will be hosted and which are
> going
> >> to be the versions of fileinstall and karaf that the deployer will be
> built
> >> against?
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> *Ioannis Canellos*
> >> *
> >>
> >> **
> >> Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com
> >> **
> >> Twitter: iocanel
> >> *
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------
> > Guillaume Nodet
> > ------------------------
> > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> > ------------------------
> > FuseSource, Integration everywhere
> > http://fusesource.com
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message