karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Lewis <sle...@composent.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Karaf Boot
Date Thu, 10 Sep 2015 22:40:32 GMT
On 9/10/2015 2:58 PM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
> <stuff deleted>
> The microservice dance
>
> actually it's just add a rest-service on top of a OSGi service, that's all
> that is needed in Karaf.
> Right now I'm not in favor of any certain framework. CXF seems a bit
> bloated but is known to work, but requires blueprint.
> Jersey, I've seen that to be working with "plain" OSGi. A bit of polishing
> and it should be quite easy to use, especially with CDI at hand.

I would suggest the use of OSGi Remote Services/RSA [1].   The Remote 
Services spec defines standard service properties triggering the export 
of the service via some unspecified distribution 
system/transport...typically in response to service registration done 
through whatever means...e.g. DS, java code, Dependency Manager, Spring, 
or anything else that uses the service registry. One of the standardized 
properties allows a distribution provider to be selected, separately for 
each service instance if needed.

Each distribution provider can be as small or large as required for the 
use case.  For example, ECF's RSA impl now supports using CXF, Jersey, 
or other Jax-RS implementations along with Hazelcast, rosgi, tcp, JMS, 
MQTT, and other providers [2].   Or if you need to you can create and 
use your own distribution provider.  In any case, the service won't be 
bound to any distribution provider or RSA impl on server or clients, and 
can be changed prior to service registration.

Scott

[1] http://www.osgi.org/Specifications/HomePage
[2] 
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Tutorial:_Using_REST_and_OSGi_Standards_for_Micro_Services
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Tutorial:_Exposing_a_Jax_REST_service_as_an_OSGi_Remote_Service



>
> But it needs more to dance the microservice dance, you need "small"
> containers ... which is quite contrary to the way Karaf and OSGi in general
> is working with services.
> But this is the point I think the karaf profiles come in handy. You don't
> need a full blown Karaf, just a basic infrastructure with your own Bundle,
> might as well ignore the shell. In the end dump that into a docker
> container and if you need to do a bugfix do it the "docker" - way.
>
>
> spring-boot brings it all in one go
>
> karaf-boot should do the same, but actually I fear we do more then needed.
> For a new Project setup I'd rather would like to see different
> karaf-starter-* BOMs and a karaf:run maven plugin
> Some more docuementation for the profiles of Karaf could also be helpful :D
> to build minimalistic karaf instances runnable in docker containers.
> Regarding the karaf:run it might be interesting to "re-activate" the
> pax:run maven plugin to run nicely with a karaf instance, or use it as
> foundation for the karaf:run maven plugin.
>
>
>
> So in the end, do we really need all this?
> I'm not so sure, but we surely need an easier "to use" approach.
> Therefore we should first focus on having easier setup of bundle
> development.
> -> karaf-boot-starter-* BOMs should take care of that
> -> karaf:run should make it easier to have a running container
>
> Do we need new annotations? I can't see that yet.
> Instead we should/could focus on the following:
> a) make sure DS also is capable to work with JPA/JTA and some other
> enterprise annotations
> b) make sure CDI works with runtime JPA/JTA annotation smoothly
> c) provide more demos and archetypes with OSGi and CDI annotations
>
>
> regards, Achim
>
>
>
>
>
> 2015-09-10 20:41 GMT+02:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net>:
>
>> Thanks Milen,
>>
>> it's an open place to discussion. We just share standpoints and opinions:
>> that's the key part !!!
>>
>> My goal is to give more traction on Karaf by providing easier
>>
>> We all provide valid points, but I think we are not the most setted to
>> argue as we are deeply involved in OSGi and Karaf. The karaf-boot proto
>> came when discussing with new Karaf users, coming from "outside" of OSGi,
>> or people that decided to use spring-boot (even if they like a lot Karaf),
>> just because it's easier. It's hardly frustrating for us as we just need
>> some tooling to provide even more traction. On the container side, I think
>> Karaf is already great, and answers all needs. The part where we should
>> improve what we deliver is around developer tooling: easier, faster, key
>> turn.
>>
>> If karaf-boot will be a success, I don't know (who knows ? ;)). But
>> anyway, it brings points, questions, and identify some missings in the
>> current picture.
>>
>> My $0.01 ;)
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>>
>> On 09/10/2015 08:02 PM, Milen Dyankov wrote:
>>
>>> Well I was just referring to your example but I get your point. Which
>>> reminds me of EnRoute <http://enroute.osgi.org/> project which despite
>>> the
>>> big names and the most popular OSGI build tool behind it, doesn't seem to
>>> get as much traction as I expected!
>>>
>>> That said, I really admire your enthusiasm and wish KarafBoot can be more
>>> successful that that. I'm not trying to discourage you! Just it seams what
>>> you are after is something that other people have tried already with
>>> questionable success.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Milen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> And how to you deal with jpa, jta, rest, etc with SCR annotations ?
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 09/10/2015 07:16 PM, Milen Dyankov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So correct me if I'm wrong but if I get the sample you provided in the
>>>>> first mail and replace:
>>>>>     - the parent pom with "maven-bundle-plugin"
>>>>>     - @Bean with @Component
>>>>>     - @Init with @Activate
>>>>>
>>>>> wouldn't that have the exact same end result? I mean it obviously differ
>>>>> in
>>>>> terms of what gets generated (Blueprint vs DS) but form end user
>>>>> perspective there is no difference, right?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey Milen,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, there's too part:
>>>>>> 1/ karaf-boot-starter will do the ready to start artifact, embedding
>>>>>> karaf, but it's another point
>>>>>> 2/ the value of karaf-boot annotations and plugin is first to simplify
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> bundle/artifact ready to be deploy-able into Karaf (generate the
>>>>>> "plumbing"
>>>>>> easily for developers).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/10/2015 06:50 PM, Milen Dyankov wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " ... that you deploy in Karaf ..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK may be I misunderstood the concept. I thought the result is
>>>>>>> standalone
>>>>>>> executable JAR, thus my comments above. If on the other hand
I need to
>>>>>>> install Karaf and then deploy my services into it I really don't
see
>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> differs form what people are doing now?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sorry if I'm not making much sense. I didn't have the time
to
>>>>>>> experiment with your code and samples so may be I'm missing an
>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>> peace here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Milen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Allow me to disagree: Karaf is a perfect container for microservices.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Image to create a microservice (using karaf-boot) that you
deploy in
>>>>>>>> Karaf
>>>>>>>> and use such service in another microservice, all wired with
OSGi
>>>>>>>> service
>>>>>>>> and Karaf: we leverage OSGi/Karaf as a microservices container.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But even without talking of microservices, new developers
to Karaf
>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>> OSGi generally speaking) are frustrated by the effort on
non business
>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>> to do (I have to write an Activator, or a descriptor, etc,
etc).
>>>>>>>> So, a tooling to simplify this is still a valid addition
IMHO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 09/10/2015 06:23 PM, Milen Dyankov wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I might be wrong but I think the whole success of SpringBoot
(apart
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> having the "Spring" in it) is the microservices hype!
>>>>>>>>> it's quick and easy but most usecases follow the "create
one (or
>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>> few)
>>>>>>>>> service(s), pack them as single executable and access
them via REST"
>>>>>>>>> pattern. We can obviously do the same with OSGi and Karaf
in
>>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> personally I think this makes absolutely no sense. In
such approach
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> not benefiting form OSGi almost at all. Honestly speaking
I would
>>>>>>>>> argue
>>>>>>>>> that if one does not understand how OSGi service layer
works
>>>>>>>>> (regardless
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the framework used to register/access services) it makes
no sense to
>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>> OSGi at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just my 2 cents!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Milen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Christian Schneider
<
>>>>>>>>> chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I already created such a maven plugin in aries. The user
can use
>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> CDI and JEE annotations and the result is blueprint xml.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How is the new approach different / better?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why should it be good for the developer to move away
from well
>>>>>>>>>> defined
>>>>>>>>>> standard annotations and use custom annotations that
bind him to
>>>>>>>>>> karaf?
>>>>>>>>>> I mean if this is created by the spring guys I know
they want to
>>>>>>>>>> catch
>>>>>>>>>> people by perceived simplicity and then make sure
to make it
>>>>>>>>>> difficult
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> switch. As an open source comminity I do not know
why we should do
>>>>>>>>>> something like this.
>>>>>>>>>> Abstracting away from frameworks just means you create
another
>>>>>>>>>> layer
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> people then also have to learn. There were some cases
in the past
>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>> this make sense because the underlying frameworks
sucked (like JEE
>>>>>>>>>> 2).
>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>> is not the case today though I think.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What kind of use case do you have in mind? Every
project starts
>>>>>>>>>> small
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> it needs to be able to grow then. You can not start
with custom
>>>>>>>>>> annoations
>>>>>>>>>> and then tell people to later switch to something
else when the
>>>>>>>>>> project grows. I think it makes more sense to make
it easier for
>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> use the standard annoations and use the right dependencies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If we simply provide a tooling that makes it easy
to start with SCR
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>> blueprint we provide much more value for people as
thery can then
>>>>>>>>>> grow
>>>>>>>>>> without any breaking changes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 10.09.2015 um 17:46 schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because all these annotations are runtime: here we
talk about
>>>>>>>>>> tooling
>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> build time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> More over, the purpose is to provide more high
level annotations,
>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>> abstract actual annotations/frameworks that we
can use under hood.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The purpose of centralizing all in karaf-boot
is to have a central
>>>>>>>>>>> project: the developer just use karaf-boot, it
doesn't really know
>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>> technologies are involved behind the scene.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, in spring-boot, they use activemq,
jersey, etc, but
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> from spring-boot. The developers don't know a
rest service use
>>>>>>>>>>> jersey
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> instance, it's completely abstracted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again the purpose is to simplify life for developers:
splitting
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> annotations in different projects introduces
complexity (at least
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>>>>> the dependencies and core import packages).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If an advanced developer wants to use CDI, SCR,
etc, he can of
>>>>>>>>>>> course.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/10/2015 05:40 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am not really enthusiastic about duplicating
functionality of
>>>>>>>>>>> cxf
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> aries. Aries supports a very nice approach for
injections, jpa and
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> jta.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why should it make sense to recreate that?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Aries blueprint also has annoation support
even in two flavors
>>>>>>>>>>>> (CDI,
>>>>>>>>>>>> custom). How does the new approach interact
with this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead I propose we create support for such
annotations in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> respective projects (where they are missing)
and concentrate on
>>>>>>>>>>>> karaf
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> a container not an application development
framework.
>>>>>>>>>>>> By leveraging the existing frameworks we
profit from their own
>>>>>>>>>>>> development teams. Whatever we recreate will
have to be developed
>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> very few resources of the karaf team.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 10.09.2015 um 16:53 schrieb Jean-Baptiste
Onofré:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Guillaume,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your feedback.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I fully agree about providing more high
level annotations (it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with @jpa, @rest, @soap, @jta annotations).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that the current annotations
are too low level, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "oriented". I just move forward a bit
with the current codebase,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to illustrate karaf-boot usage in the
samples.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But again, you are right, and I will
create a new annotations
>>>>>>>>>>>>> set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the purpose of karaf-boot annotations
is to "abstract"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual code/artifact that we generate.
So, if now we generate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> blueprint, without changing the karaf-boot
annotations, we will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to generate something else (why
not SCR, etc).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with a BOM, but I think it's
interesting to provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>> both:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - providing a ready to use parent pom
allows developers to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> very simple pom.xml where all plugins
and dependencies are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - for more advanced devs, they can create
their own pom.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the BOM or archetype.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for your feedback !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 09/10/2015 04:44 PM, Guillaume Nodet
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the annotations, we need to keep
really high level.  The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> annotations in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the code base right now are much
too close to blueprint.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to grab a small enough
subset so that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> annotations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy to understand for beginners
and without any ambiguities,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost of features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, I think we should restrict
to constructor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> injection,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we don't have any bind / rebind /
init methods.  We simply need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> optional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Destroy.  In case the dependencies
change at runtime, simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean / service and recreate it the
dependencies are still met
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If blueprint is to be hidden completely,
we may find a better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in SCR or even Felix Dependency Manager,
but it does not matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with the idea of using a
BOM instead of a parent if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.  I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not very familiar, but this is less
invasive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The real problems will come with
the support of higher level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> annotations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for JAXRS, JPA, etc...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not really sure how to handle those
yet...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015-09-09 16:32 GMT+02:00 Jean-Baptiste
Onofré <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I worked on a prototype about Karaf
Boot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me give you some backgrounds
and discuss about that all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        Why Karaf Boot ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        ----------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you develop artifacts (bundles)
to be deployed in Karaf,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the actual time that you
spend on your business code is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largely less important that all
the plumbing effort that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (writing OSGi Activator, or blueprint/scr
descriptor, etc).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means that your "go to market"
is longer, and we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something that allows you to
focus on your code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if SCR annotations is a
very good step forward, some use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not so easy to do (JPA, JTA for
instance).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And anyway, you have to prepare
your pom.xml with different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, when you have your
artifacts, you have to prepare
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karaf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> container, and deploy those artifacts
there. Even if it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "container"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach is the most important
for me, we can give even more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flexibility by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> providing a way to embed and
prepare Karaf in a ready to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar/artifact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        What is Karaf Boot ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        --------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karaf Boot provides four components:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * karaf-boot-parent is the Maven
parent pom that your project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherit: that's all ! All plugins,
dependencies, etc are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parent, you even don't have to
define packaging as bundle,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jar is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * karaf-boot (coming with karaf-boot-parent)
provides
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> annotations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use directly in your business
code (like @Bean, @Service,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Reference,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Inject, etc): again, your focus
on your code, karaf-boot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plumbing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * karaf-boot-maven-plugin (coming
with karaf-boot-parent) scan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and generate a blueprint XML.
For now, I'm using blueprint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (because we can cover lot of
use cases, for instance, I plan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @rest annotation that will generate
blueprint XML with cxf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jaxrs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * karaf-boot-starter is the module
providing a convenient way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configure and bootstrap Karaf.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just to illustrate this, let's
take a look on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karaf-boot-sample-simple.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The pom.xml is really simple:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <project xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmlns:xsi="
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xsi:schemaLocation="
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://maven.apache.org/xsd/maven-4.0.0.xsd">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           <parent>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <groupId>org.apache.karaf.boot</groupId>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <artifactId>karaf-boot-parent</artifactId>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               <version>1.0.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           </parent>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <artifactId>karaf-boot-sample-simple</artifactId>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           <version>1.0.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </project>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can see, the only thing that
the developer has to do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karaf-boot-parent as parent pom.
That's all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, in the code, you have just
one bean that we want to run:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> package org.apache.karaf.boot.sample.simple;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import org.apache.karaf.boot.Bean;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> import org.apache.karaf.boot.Init;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Bean(id = "simple-bean")
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public class SimpleBean {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           @Init
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           public void simple()
{
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               System.out.println("Hello
world");
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can see the @Bean and @Init
karaf-boot annotations. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karaf-boot-maven-plugin will
generate the blueprint descriptor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        Current Status
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        --------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I pushed Karaf Boot structure
there:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jbonofre/karaf-boot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a mix of rewrapping of existing
code (from aries,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pax-exam,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc) and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> additions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I created the annotations, I'm
now working on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> karaf-boot-maven-plugin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on Christian's work in
aries (I'm actually scanning the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> annotations now, and generating
the XML).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will push new changes later
today and tomorrow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        Open Questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        ---------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * For now, I would prefer to
be 'artifacts' and 'resources'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generator: I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it's better than to depend
to a feature running in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karaf,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open to discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * I'm now generating blueprint.
Probably native OSGi or scr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generation can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * I'm generating bundles: thanks
to the Karaf4 features
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolver,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bundles provide requirements/capabilities
metadata, I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start. However, maybe it's worth
to be able to create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kar,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> profile.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message