On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Charles Moulliard <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > I don't think that we will delay the release of Karaf for 2-3 months > if we develop what I suggest. BTW, If we don't do that, our end users > will also have to wait maybe a couple of months also to have such > features at their disposition. So why are we so hurry to deliver > something when the baby is not ready. Apache Karaf lifecycle of > releases must be slower compare to Apache Camel, ServiceMix and > Geronimo as this is the heart/kernel of other projects. So take the > time about the reflection and prepare cleverly this release.
Yes and no :) The point here is that there are already valuable features in Karaf (although not that ground shaking; e.g. ways better Kar support) other projects might want to use; I can only speak from my point of view here but it would help me with pax-wicket or the openengsb for example to provide a one-bundle-kar which is also able to overwrite configuration files helping users to pack everything together much easier without such heavy use of the internals of karaf and the other projects :(. But maybe I'm alone with my point of view here? > > Remarks : > - If Karaf Enterprise Repository covers my point, the answer is yes. I > don't want to reinvent the wheel but we must provide a repository > (outside of Apache world) to be able to deploy features for OpenEJB, > Wicket, Vaadin, Hibernate, ... This will facilitate adoption of OSGI > world. But don't create a new repo (like OBR or Spring Enterprise > Repo) just because we would like that Karaf as it but provide real > added values like a certification program, governance rules to develop > features files, KAR archive before to deploy them. We've discussed about this already several times (mostly on IRC and on the skype birthday meeting; sry for not making this more present; but there were also 1-2 threads on the ML about this). Basically it's a two way of integration. At first (maybe Karaf 3.0) it is not more than an xml files distributing those features files for wicket, vaadin, .... In a second step (maybe Karaf 3.1) and with the help of Karaf Cave we can upgrade this to a full OBR supported repository. > - If karaf project or karaf subproject does not provide an Enterprise > Web Console, who will do that - a commercial company ? This is > required by administrators like also scripts to operate / administrate > the platform. We must also improve mbean components for JMX management > to better operate Karaf and OSGI Services. God beware! Except we may profit from it ;) No, fun aside. I'm only with David here that Karaf (core) might not be the best place for all those features. I think we can either tackle this as a subproject, but tbh I think e.g. Aries would be a much better place for such an enterprise console as they also provide all the enterprise features for Karaf. Kind regards, Andreas > > Regards, > > Charles Moulliard > > Apache Committer > > Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com > Twitter : http://twitter.com/cmoulliard > Linkedin : http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlesmoulliard > Skype: cmoulliard > > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hey Charles, >> >> +1, although this will delay Karaf for at least another 2-3 months at >> least I'm afraid. >> >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Charles Moulliard <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> That means that we must in this release : >>> - Simplify the deployment process of the different archives (EAR, WAR, >>> EBA, JAR, KAR, Spring, Blueprint) and help our end users for doing >>> that through Maven, OBR, ... - Question : Do we have to support all of >>> them ? Maybe we could restrict the deployment of the required type >>> (JAR, Bundle, Spring, Blueprint, WAR ?) and let's project like >>> Geronimo to take care about EAR, EJB modules ? >> >> I don't think that Karaf should be responsible for all types. The base >> types are quite enough. Aries, Geronimo, SMX could provide more >> specific deployers for different packages (and we almost have those >> deployers already). I consider it much more important that .kar files >> could adapt Karaf in an easier way here. >> >>> - Provide a more Enterprise Web Console for operating Karaf - >>> configuring DataSource(s), web modules, Security, ... >> >> Again I'm not sure how far this is the responsibility of Karaf. >> Although Karaf has the enterprise features file I'm not sure if this >> is something we really want in the core. We should rather discuss if >> we shouldn't provide a karaf-enterprise subproject or something >> similar containing those features (if we want to host this at Karaf at >> all) (Feel free to create an issue for this point; I'm sure there is >> none by now). >> >>> - Add admin profile to restrict usage of the Karaf commands as we only >>> support right now a full admin access >> >> Interesting idea. This could definitely add some value (I think we're >> also lacking an issue for that). >> >>> - Improve and refactor commands like also the display- e.g. when we >>> display all commands --> should be grouped and separate from each >>> other, shortcut displayed at the end, ... >> >> Same as above. >> >>> - Provide the strategy to be used to perform unit test/integration >>> with Karaf using pax-exam, pax-exam-2, .... or any other solution >>> allowing to mock OSGI platform >> >> TBH I don't think that this is part of Karaf. We should rather >> integrate a Karaf Profile for pax-exam2 here (therefore this does not >> have to come necessarily with Karaf 3. We can tackle this later or >> earlier as we have time). >> >>> - Provide repository of enterprise features (Hibernate, EJB, ...) or >>> at least governance rules to allow third party projects to develop >>> such features and pass them into a acceptance program to certified >>> them according to Karaf releases. >> >> Devinitely; this would match the Karaf Enterprise Repository issue, wouldn't >> it? >> >> Kind regards, >> Andreas >> >>> >>> + 1 for JB propositions + mine improvements of components >>> + 1 for a Karaf 3.0 release proposing more enterprise features >>> - for RC >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Charles Moulliard >>> >>> Apache Committer >>> >>> Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com >>> Twitter : http://twitter.com/cmoulliard >>> Linkedin : http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlesmoulliard >>> Skype: cmoulliard >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:05 AM, David Jencks <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2011, at 5:26 AM, Andreas Pieber wrote: >>>> <big snip> >>>> >>>>> * Karaf profiles & Kar files (IMHO this is one of the most important >>>>> features for 3.x and not present in the issues by now; there had been >>>>> considerable work on this by David, but still, we're missing a >>>>> possibility to start e.g. CXF without modifying some files in etc) >>>> >>>> I'm really hoping that 3.0.0 will have the minimal and standard assemblies >>>> created using kars/features rather than the old style >>>> maven-assembly-plugin. I haven't been able to work on this for a while >>>> but i thought I left it in a state as least as functional as the old-style >>>> servers. The only bit I recall as missing is the legal files. >>>> >>>> What are you looking for to start e.g. cxf? IIRC you can assemble a >>>> server including a cxf feature as a boot feature, or add it in later as a >>>> regular feature.... >>>> >>>> thanks >>>> david jencks >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
