servicemix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Baptiste Onofré ...@nanthrax.net>
Subject Re: [Discuss] Create one karaf feature repo per spring version in servicemix bundles
Date Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:36:49 GMT
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/)
>

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Mime
View raw message