Hi JB, thanks again for doing a great job to put us all in the right picture again :)
Now please see my comments inline: 2014-02-25 10:57 GMT+01:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>: > Hi all, > > In the latest weeks, we discussed about different topics and changes for > Karaf. We had very interesting different proposals, discussions, etc. > However, some discussions were on IRC, so it's not easy for everybody to > follow. > > I would like to summarise the different topics and build a roadmap. > > I gonna update the roadmap wiki page: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KARAF/Roadmap > > But before updating the wiki page, I would like to share with you all the > different topics and provide a global picture overview. > > 1/ Short term (3.0.x/3.1.x) > ------------- > - Fixed and enhancements on the maven-karaf-plugin. It's on my TODO for > today. It includes several fixes, add more tests, and support of Maven > 3.1/3.2 > nice > - Usage of commons-daemon. As we are stuck to a old Tanuki JSW wrapper > (license issue), I prepared the usage of Apache commons-daemon on a branch. > I will push this branch to let you take a look. > great, though I think we still could go with the "old" one, this shouldn't be much of a blocker IMHO > - Samples and developer guide. I prepared a branch where I replaced the > demos modules with samples modules. The purpose is to illustrate the > developer guide (that I refactored/enhanced too) with CDI, JPA, etc samples. > - Net/minimal distributions. In addition of the "standard" distribution, > we will provide two other distributions: the net is very very minimal and > will download all artifacts from remote repository (Internet) at startup, > on the other hand, minimal distribution contains a minimal system > repository and allow to easily construct custom distribution. > yeah, a net distribution sounds fair though I'm not sure it's good to introduce this with a bugfix version. > - Reduce number of bundles: with Karaf 3.0.0, we introduced multiple > bundles: in Karaf itself, or due to dependency projects (like Pax URL for > instance). If I think it's good, maybe we want a bit far and, if possible, > I would reduce the number of bundles started. > +1, need to find the balance again, I think I've said this before doing microbundles just because we can do is not good. > - Own versioning for Spring and Enteprise Karaf Features: now, to upgrade > to new version of Spring, Hibernate, OpenJPA, etc, we have to release a new > version of Karaf. Of course, the Karaf features should be provided by the > projects themselves, but waiting this, I would like to manage Spring and > Enterprise Karaf features as "standalone". The codebase stays where it's, > but instead of depending to Karaf parent POM, it will depend directly to > Apache POM and excluded from the Karaf reactor. > like this one a lot, though again I'm a bit ambivalent about this, because doing such a "feature" change in a bug-fix version doesn't feel right. > > 2/ Middle term (3.1.x/future) > -------------- > - Blueprint dependency and more usage of pure OSGi/DS. Now, lot of Karaf > modules depend to blueprint (for IoC or namespace handler). In order to > minimise the footprint, and avoid some issues (like proxy), it would be > great to set Blueprint as optional and more use pure OSGi or DS internally > in Karaf. We should also provide a better "advertising" about DS support. > - Generic shell commands. Now, projects (like CXF, Camel, etc) depends to > Karaf shell modules (and console by transitivity). The purpose is: > 1/ simplify the usage/coding of commands (providing annotation especially) > 2/ avoid the dependency to blueprint (especially the namespace handler) > 3/ reduce the dependency > 4/ provide a better support of Felix Gogo shell in Karaf > Besides the last point I'm +1 with 4, I just don't get why this is something Karaf does profit from. Could the rather lengthy discussions that have taken place on IRC, and really should have taken place on a mailinglist for all to contribute to, please be summarized on an extra thread for this? I still don't see the value of this. regards, Achim > > Again, the purpose of this e-mail is not to details each section, but to > provide a global picture. The details will go into the corresponding Jira. > > Thoughts ? > > Regards > JB > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com > -- Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead OPS4J Pax for Vaadin <http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home> Commiter & Project Lead blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
