servicemix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Krzysztof Sobkowiak <krzys.sobkow...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Discuss] Create one karaf feature repo per spring version in servicemix bundles
Date Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:25:20 GMT
So, I'll let create the repository for features

Kindly regards
Krzysztof

On 30.01.2017 18:36, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> That's my point in the previous e-mail. For spring, the feature is "coupled" to the bundles.
But we can imagine to provide features not related to SMX bundles (like activity or drools
for instance, when the other project doesn't provide the features itself of course).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 01/30/2017 06:33 PM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak wrote:
>> But if we would like to add in the future new features (not always connected to the
bundles contained in the bundles repository like in this spring case) I'd prefer to separate
them from the bundles repository.
>>
>> On 30.01.2017 18:28, Krzysztof Sobkowiak wrote:
>>> Maybe the servicemix-bundles name i not to good anymore when it should contain
both bundles and features.
>>>
>>> On 30.01.2017 18:25, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>>> Good point. But I don't see an easy move without a change on the git layout.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>>
>>>> On 01/30/2017 06:18 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>> I don't really get the idea of separating the features from the bundles
>>>>> from a code source point of view...
>>>>> In the arguments you listed in your first email, having a separate
>>>>> lifecycle is great, we can even have a different groupId.
>>>>> Though it may be easier to maybe move things into 2 separate directories
:
>>>>>    bundles/
>>>>>    features/
>>>>> Even if they have different lifecycles, I think they will be released
as
>>>>> batches, same as it's happening for bundles, so I think it would have
been
>>>>> easier to have them in a single repo.
>>>>> That said, it's definitely no big deal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2017-01-30 18:13 GMT+01:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it's the idea: move features on git, each module there with
its own
>>>>>> release cycle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/30/2017 06:11 PM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I propose the servicemix-features subproject/repository (or you
meant
>>>>>>> something other?) We could move there later some other features
from
>>>>>>> ServiceMix which have another lifecycle than the assembly (e.g.
the
>>>>>>> activiti  /here the activiti proiect could be more suitable/
or drools
>>>>>>> feature) and place there some new future features. In this case
this
>>>>>>> repository should also contain eventual glue code necessary to
implement
>>>>>>> the feature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I propose to migrate the old https://svn.apache.org/repos/a
>>>>>>> sf/servicemix/smx4/features/ repository to git (servicemix-features),
>>>>>>> move the old code to servicemix4 branch and start with an empty
master fr
>>>>>>> the new features.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kindly regards
>>>>>>> Krzysztof
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 30.01.2017 12:57, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Christian,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> adding the Karaf dev mailing list in copy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with the proposal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, SMX Bundles are supposed to contain only OSGi bundle
wrapper for
>>>>>>>> non OSGi libaries (and jar generally speaking).
>>>>>>>> As it's where we provide Spring bundles, it would be logic
to have the
>>>>>>>> corresponding feature, however, I see two issues:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. It means that SMX Bundles will contain more than just
bundle, it will
>>>>>>>> also provide features. It would be weird for users to have
a feature in
>>>>>>>> mvn:org.apache.servicemix.bundles/org.apache.servicemix.bund
>>>>>>>> les.spring/4.3.5.RELEASE_1/xml/features URL for instance.
>>>>>>>> 2. It means we will have one feature module for each sub-spring
version:
>>>>>>>> for instance 4.3.5_1 and 4.3.5_2.
>>>>>>>> It's not a big deal because it happens rarely, but it happened
already.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you take a look on Cave README, you will see:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Apache Karaf Cave is an Apache Karaf subproject. It provides
an OSGi
>>>>>>>> Bundle Repository (OBR) and Karaf Features Repository (KFR)."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The purpose of a Karaf Features Repository (KFR) is to host
non core
>>>>>>>> Karaf features, not in other project.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, instead of org.apache.servicemix.bundles, where the Spring
bundles
>>>>>>>> will stay, I would propose a org.apache.servicemix.features,
acting as
>>>>>>>> a repository, wrapping different features. We would have:
>>>>>>>> - org.apache.servicemix.features/spring
>>>>>>>> - org.apache.Servicemix.features/directory
>>>>>>>> - ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Each SMX features would have its own release cycle, and can
have
>>>>>>>> branches for the different versions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2017 12:09 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we are currently trying to make Apache Karaf slimmer
for the version
>>>>>>>>> 4.1.0.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In previous karaf versions we had different spring versions
in the karaf
>>>>>>>>> spring feature repo. This posed two problems:
>>>>>>>>> 1. The karaf resolver always has to work on all provided
spring versions
>>>>>>>>> which increased the chance a wrong one is picked
>>>>>>>>> 2. Karaf can not provide all bugfix versions of spring.
So each karaf
>>>>>>>>> version comes with a different set. So for a user the
upgrade means the
>>>>>>>>> spring version
>>>>>>>>> changes and he can not upgrade the bugfix version while
keeping the
>>>>>>>>> karaf version.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So starting with karaf 4.1.0 we split the spring feature
repos into the
>>>>>>>>> most current version (currently 4.3.5) which is installed
by default and
>>>>>>>>> a spring-legacy feature repo with the older versions.
This fixes problem
>>>>>>>>> 1 but also causes problems for some existing features
like the activemq
>>>>>>>>> 5.14.3 one that requires spring 3.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So a better fix would be to provide one feature repo
per spring version
>>>>>>>>> and let the 3rd party feature add this to its feature
using the
>>>>>>>>> repository tag. So only the needed spring version is
provided and the
>>>>>>>>> maintainer of the 3rd party repo can freely decide which
to use.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem with this is that karaf is not a good place
to provide the
>>>>>>>>> feature repos as we release all of karaf together in
one version.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I think servicemix bundles would be a good place to
put these feature
>>>>>>>>> repos into. The source repo already provides the spring
bundles for each
>>>>>>>>> version and I think the feature repo would fit nicely
into this
>>>>>>>>> structure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the activemq community likes the idea I will provide
pull requests
>>>>>>>>> for the spring versions we currently use in karaf.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>

-- 
Krzysztof Sobkowiak (@ksobkowiak)

JEE & OSS Architect, Integration Architect
Apache Software Foundation Member (http://apache.org/)
Apache ServiceMix Committer & PMC Member (http://servicemix.apache.org/)
Senior Solution Architect @ Capgemini SSC (http://www.capgeminisoftware.pl/)

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