Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E5E200C0D for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 22:25:36 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 55730160B52; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:25:36 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 77492160B36 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 22:25:35 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 48599 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jan 2017 21:25:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@servicemix.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@servicemix.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@servicemix.apache.org Received: (qmail 48587 invoked by uid 99); 31 Jan 2017 21:25:34 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:25:34 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id DECB7C09D9 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:25:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.179 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.179 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qL_aMXRJlDTm for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:25:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf0-f50.google.com (mail-lf0-f50.google.com [209.85.215.50]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id C046A5F30D for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:25:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f50.google.com with SMTP id v186so218528453lfa.1 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:25:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=rueYJioi66mOTuVcITto2Rca8c08VKjn0Clx5HiyPAA=; b=a/DWTsxBZ1LopiLZ1ga/xLgC4/i1VZoSbeobr0WPuXQfdjbU5wsABVhdxo7YtrnE9r 5KkWX+3NUFeuOgmcqoZM1fN/wEzSBlIQKl9g6SNPvQPVPvx0rxkN9Jfjsqg/3U0dd7Jb Np9VIUZcWaWnVIdGFNAMbog27UlT78bP1Ova2fMHRwDQK/nocmYtGIXXlQU0hZk43HMk NGDAY25ZOWZQDCSQwlx6avnvVS3eInP0Ivyxzvw8lCqF/xBy14mKjaHLGBbM5amg9RBP JM18XTZsg7XW05MQadXYmFURPa/0wAYjYrIvAFmsDbIPykVDjkh6Wp/otFueBO1PG/pP +IwQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=rueYJioi66mOTuVcITto2Rca8c08VKjn0Clx5HiyPAA=; b=ZXHk4gkGbNEBlk72XNo5ZDPm2Ggp3kch5RUFcSJZRfQQIUK+4gp4+CkGXXpVYQuG0e E3RWIxSClSQ700L+1dB9k67J2u6yyWP34wPH9jO06abtI62y13rXqFWIvmLoWgHztBuK kPIl+/JsvhtJTMgP3z2xYiNBStLusRVpuo6jJNrLRf3phvmrYl/VjlerfXYI3B4BIrKg gMIEjUaH+TSnjgw59taEoxpufiC5N+uEShoMz5ODxTFAD25Sk0F+srKQPO0iY/exfn0E wx1NqIUAZJfv8TCqntiBc+FgBZSTo/J/xYWqbLhpk9o6uDd0I6mXak1OmAzxtt7ixcW8 1jLg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJDP+X6TL+B85zHVQtNwzDL+A+kE7z4cGuRsycCWsWk6ERHEBSQXnWtVUd/k4j5dQ== X-Received: by 10.25.18.218 with SMTP id 87mr8633250lfs.128.1485897923277; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:25:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.10] (078088031192.dynamic-ra-08.vectranet.pl. [78.88.31.192]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id y29sm2665099ljd.41.2017.01.31.13.25.21 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:25:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Discuss] Create one karaf feature repo per spring version in servicemix bundles To: dev@servicemix.apache.org References: <03842715-5ee1-380d-57d0-3ce7ebbfab11@die-schneider.net> <999e11b7-a2ac-2192-39b9-30208423abc2@nanthrax.net> <0d39dec2-369d-8c90-877b-3b4d3c77821d@gmail.com> <7878fd64-a71e-23c8-4499-0bab74da4aa1@gmail.com> From: Krzysztof Sobkowiak Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 22:25:20 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------53E57C9429CD9D2C2562EAAC" Content-Language: pl archived-at: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:25:36 -0000 --------------53E57C9429CD9D2C2562EAAC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 : >>>>> >>>>>> 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/) --------------53E57C9429CD9D2C2562EAAC--