Hi Thanks for sharing the details about the bnd maven plugin. Sounds promising if its more active maintained and is better.
Anyone is surely welcome to give it a go on the Camel master branch. The build system is a bit complicated as there is some default stuff in parent pom.xml and some ant magic to "massage" maven vs osgi versions when using SNAPSHOTs and whatnot. Its all part of some old stuff we needed many years ago when OSGi was new and more buggy. I am not so sure we need all that anymore, it would be lovely to make the build system simpler and easier. Sadly I have not seen any tools that can compare a set of JARs against other JARs to see if their MANIFEST.MF is "the same". Its a bit scary if the new plugin generates "wrong" imports/exports and the only way to be sure it works is to run it all in a real osgi container and try all the components for real. Not only just see if the component can be installed. But then this is what the community is for - to help test - especially for the people who are using OSGi. People who are not, you are missing out all the fun ;) ..... or maybe not. A fallback plan is to keep using the old 2.3.7 plugin and then maybe "hand craft" the camel-core pom.xml instead of generating it to workaround its issue with Java 1.8 and the caffeine cache. But then we are stuck on this old dead horse still. On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Quinn Stevenson <qu...@pronoia-solutions.com> wrote: > Antonin/Claus - > > I’ve used the bnd-maven-plugin, and it dramatically reduced the amount of > configuration I had to do for my bundles. I hit a bug in maven-bundle-plugin > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5179) and moving to the > bnd-maven-plugin allowed me to what I needed to do. I even provided a patch > for the maven-bundle-plugin, but it has yet to be applied. > > I haven’t explored the intricacies of the Camel build as far as bundle > manifests are concerned, but I think it would be worthwhile to try the > bnd-maven-plugin. > > >> On Mar 24, 2016, at 2:28 AM, Antonin Stefanutti <anto...@stefanutti.fr> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Claus, >> >> Just in case for info, there is apparently a new BND Maven plugin [1] that >> is supposed to alleviate some of the issues encountered with >> maven-bundle-plugin. >> >> I haven’t tried it (nor am knowledgeable in the area) but that may be good >> to know at some point for that piece of work. >> >> [1]: http://njbartlett.name/2015/03/27/announcing-bnd-maven-plugin.html >> >> Antonin >> >>> On 24 Mar 2016, at 07:44, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> m) >>> Upgrade OSGi >>> >>> We are using osgi 4.3.1 version which whatever OSGi version that is. >>> But there is a OSGi 5.0 that newer Karaf containers uses. >>> >>> But the big pain is upgrading maven-bundle-plugin. We are currently >>> using an old 2.3.7. But the newer versions have their new sets of >>> problems / fixes. >>> >>> i have struggled with newer versions generating missing details in the >>> manifest.mf files. For example camel-core did not export all its >>> packages etc. A bit scary. But we do have a fair bit of maven >>> properties and other osgi "magic" to make the build process build OSGi >>> modules across all the 250 or so artifacts. >>> >>> I pushed to a branch called osgi-trouble where you can see some of this >>> problems >>> https://github.com/apache/camel/commits/osgi-trouble >>> >>> Using the latest 3.0.1 bundle plugin fails to build camel-core. It >>> complains something about the osgi activator. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> So Camel 2.17 was the last release supporting Java 1.7. >>>> The next Camel 2.18 is requiring Java 1.8. >>>> >>>> Here is some thoughts of mine about this release up for discussion. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> a) >>>> I see the overall goal of Camel 2.18 as a stepping stone towards Java >>>> 1.8 and Camel 3.0. >>>> >>>> By that I mean the release should be a way of moving our existing >>>> users from Java 1.7 and the current Camel APIs and the likes gradually >>>> towards Java 1.8 and eventually Camel 3.0. >>>> >>>> In other words we should not get carried away to change/break APIs and >>>> whatnot just because Java 1.8 lambdas and functions. >>>> >>>> There are too many current users that rely on the current Camel API >>>> and we cannot go around change processor / expression / predicate / >>>> aggregation strategy and other interfaces to be java 8 functional if >>>> that means current code cannot compile. And certainly not adding >>>> Optional<X> as return types all over. >>>> >>>> The following releases (Camel 2.19 or 3.0) can pick up that torch and >>>> be more Java 1.8 aggressive. For example Camel 3.0 can expect API >>>> changes that are Java 8 lambda / functional based. And as well changes >>>> in the DSL to go with that. >>>> >>>> There are some minor code changes needed to make the source compile as >>>> source 1.8 to go in this Camel 2.18 let alone. >>>> >>>> >>>> b) >>>> Drop components that do not support and run on Java 1.8 >>>> And potentially remove some deprecated components >>>> >>>> >>>> c) >>>> Drop karaf 2.x. >>>> And move to karaf 4.x for all our testing. >>>> >>>> >>>> d) >>>> Drop Jetty 8.x. >>>> >>>> This also requires to upgrade at least two components that currently >>>> rely on Jetty 8 to use Jetty 9. >>>> >>>> >>>> e) >>>> Upgrade to latest Jetty 9. >>>> Jetty 9.3 (or is it 9.4) requires Java 1.8 >>>> >>>> >>>> f) >>>> Drop support for older versions of Spring. We have a number of >>>> camel-test-spring3 etc modules that can be dropped. And maybe even >>>> spring 4.0. as its also EOL. >>>> >>>> >>>> g) >>>> Potentially move spring-dm out of camel-spring into a camel-spring-dm >>>> module. So camel-spring can use latest version of Spring safely. This >>>> also makes it easier to deprecated spring-dm and remove it eventually. >>>> The Karaf team is working on a sping -> blueprint layer so you can use >>>> spring xml files but Karaf will "convert" that under the hood to >>>> blueprint and run it as blueprint. When that is ready we no longer >>>> need spring-dm. >>>> >>>> >>>> h) >>>> Continue adding components docs in the source, eg src/main/doc files. >>>> So we eventually have as many/all of them. This is an ongoing effort, >>>> as we need to do this for the EIPs and the other parts of the docs. >>>> >>>> However I see this as a great step for a new documentation and >>>> website, that IMHO is a big goal for Camel 3.0. To make the project >>>> website fresh and modern. And make the documentation easier for end >>>> users to use and view. >>>> >>>> >>>> i) >>>> Add camel-hysterix component and integrate camel's circuit breaker >>>> into turbine/hysterix so you can see metrics from camel in the >>>> dashboard. Eg to integrate with the popular Netflix OSS stack. >>>> >>>> >>>> j) >>>> Split camel-cxf into modules so we can separate WS and RS and also >>>> spring vs blueprint. Today its big ball of dependencies that is a bit >>>> hard to slice and dice. Specially for MSA style with REST and you dont >>>> want to add in a bunch of extra not needed JARs. >>>> >>>> >>>> k) >>>> Continue as usual by adding new components, data formats, fix bugs, and so >>>> on. >>>> >>>> >>>> l) >>>> Timeline. This release do not need to have 6-8 months timeframe. We >>>> could try to get this "stepping stone" release done sooner, so it can >>>> be released during/shortly after summer. >>>> >>>> There is plenty of "first work" that we must do with the java 8 >>>> upgrade and dropping older techs etc, that we have our hands full for >>>> a while. >>>> >>>> Doing a release with these changes allows our end users to migrate >>>> along in a easy way, than a big bang - breaking apis - release would >>>> do. And the latter would be more appropriate to be released as Camel >>>> 3.0. >>>> >>>> Then towards the end of this year, we can see where we are and plan >>>> for a Camel 3.0 with a new website and documentation that such a >>>> release deserve. For example if we release Camel 3.0 in start of 2017 >>>> then its also Camel's 10 year birthday year. >>>> >>>> And doing such a release with a rewamped website with fresh looking >>>> documentation and content, is what helps the project a lot. >>>> >>>> The current website looks the same as it did when it was created: >>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20070701184530/http://activemq.apache.org/camel/ >>>> >>>> PS: We surely also need a better "what is Camel" story on the front >>>> page. Its still that very first one with all the tech jumble that was >>>> initially created. >>>> >>>> PPS: I would also love to see a new Camel logo. The current one is a >>>> bit dull and boring. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Claus Ibsen >>>> ----------------- >>>> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus >>>> Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Claus Ibsen >>> ----------------- >>> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus >>> Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2 >> > -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
