And as I said, the proto annotations are a bit too low level for now.
Regards JB On 09/10/2015 07:16 PM, Milen Dyankov wrote:
So correct me if I'm wrong but if I get the sample you provided in the first mail and replace: - the parent pom with "maven-bundle-plugin" - @Bean with @Component - @Init with @Activate wouldn't that have the exact same end result? I mean it obviously differ in terms of what gets generated (Blueprint vs DS) but form end user perspective there is no difference, right? On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote:Hey Milen, Actually, there's too part: 1/ karaf-boot-starter will do the ready to start artifact, embedding karaf, but it's another point 2/ the value of karaf-boot annotations and plugin is first to simplify the bundle/artifact ready to be deploy-able into Karaf (generate the "plumbing" easily for developers). Regards JB On 09/10/2015 06:50 PM, Milen Dyankov wrote:" ... that you deploy in Karaf ..." OK may be I misunderstood the concept. I thought the result is standalone executable JAR, thus my comments above. If on the other hand I need to install Karaf and then deploy my services into it I really don't see how it differs form what people are doing now? I'm sorry if I'm not making much sense. I didn't have the time to experiment with your code and samples so may be I'm missing an important peace here. Best, Milen On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: Allow me to disagree: Karaf is a perfect container for microservices.Image to create a microservice (using karaf-boot) that you deploy in Karaf and use such service in another microservice, all wired with OSGi service and Karaf: we leverage OSGi/Karaf as a microservices container. But even without talking of microservices, new developers to Karaf (and OSGi generally speaking) are frustrated by the effort on non business code to do (I have to write an Activator, or a descriptor, etc, etc). So, a tooling to simplify this is still a valid addition IMHO. Regards JB On 09/10/2015 06:23 PM, Milen Dyankov wrote: I might be wrong but I think the whole success of SpringBoot (apart fromhaving the "Spring" in it) is the microservices hype! it's quick and easy but most usecases follow the "create one (or very few) service(s), pack them as single executable and access them via REST" pattern. We can obviously do the same with OSGi and Karaf in particular but personally I think this makes absolutely no sense. In such approach one in not benefiting form OSGi almost at all. Honestly speaking I would argue that if one does not understand how OSGi service layer works (regardless of the framework used to register/access services) it makes no sense to use OSGi at all. Just my 2 cents! Regards, Milen On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Christian Schneider < [email protected]> wrote: I already created such a maven plugin in aries. The user can use standardCDI and JEE annotations and the result is blueprint xml. How is the new approach different / better? Why should it be good for the developer to move away from well defined standard annotations and use custom annotations that bind him to karaf? I mean if this is created by the spring guys I know they want to catch people by perceived simplicity and then make sure to make it difficult to switch. As an open source comminity I do not know why we should do something like this. Abstracting away from frameworks just means you create another layer that people then also have to learn. There were some cases in the past where this make sense because the underlying frameworks sucked (like JEE 2). This is not the case today though I think. What kind of use case do you have in mind? Every project starts small but it needs to be able to grow then. You can not start with custom annoations and then tell people to later switch to something else when the project grows. I think it makes more sense to make it easier for people to use the standard annoations and use the right dependencies. If we simply provide a tooling that makes it easy to start with SCR or blueprint we provide much more value for people as thery can then grow without any breaking changes. Christian Am 10.09.2015 um 17:46 schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré: Because all these annotations are runtime: here we talk about tooling atbuild time. More over, the purpose is to provide more high level annotations, which abstract actual annotations/frameworks that we can use under hood. The purpose of centralizing all in karaf-boot is to have a central project: the developer just use karaf-boot, it doesn't really know what technologies are involved behind the scene. For instance, in spring-boot, they use activemq, jersey, etc, but all from spring-boot. The developers don't know a rest service use jersey for instance, it's completely abstracted. Again the purpose is to simplify life for developers: splitting the annotations in different projects introduces complexity (at least to find the dependencies and core import packages). If an advanced developer wants to use CDI, SCR, etc, he can of course. Regards JB On 09/10/2015 05:40 PM, Christian Schneider wrote: I am not really enthusiastic about duplicating functionality of cxf oraries. Aries supports a very nice approach for injections, jpa and jta. Why should it make sense to recreate that? Aries blueprint also has annoation support even in two flavors (CDI, custom). How does the new approach interact with this? Instead I propose we create support for such annotations in the respective projects (where they are missing) and concentrate on karaf as a container not an application development framework. By leveraging the existing frameworks we profit from their own development teams. Whatever we recreate will have to be developed by the very few resources of the karaf team. Christian Am 10.09.2015 um 16:53 schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré: Hi Guillaume,thanks for your feedback. I fully agree about providing more high level annotations (it's what I do with @jpa, @rest, @soap, @jta annotations). I agree that the current annotations are too low level, and blueprint "oriented". I just move forward a bit with the current codebase, just to illustrate karaf-boot usage in the samples. But again, you are right, and I will create a new annotations set. One of the purpose of karaf-boot annotations is to "abstract" the actual code/artifact that we generate. So, if now we generate blueprint, without changing the karaf-boot annotations, we will be able to generate something else (why not SCR, etc). I agree with a BOM, but I think it's interesting to provide both: - providing a ready to use parent pom allows developers to create a very simple pom.xml where all plugins and dependencies are already defined - for more advanced devs, they can create their own pom.xml starting from the BOM or archetype. Thanks again for your feedback ! Regards JB On 09/10/2015 04:44 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: I like the idea.For the annotations, we need to keep really high level. The annotations in the code base right now are much too close to blueprint. I think we need to grab a small enough subset so that the annotations are easy to understand for beginners and without any ambiguities, even at the cost of features. For example, I think we should restrict to constructor injection, so that we don't have any bind / rebind / init methods. We simply need an optional @Destroy. In case the dependencies change at runtime, simply destroy the bean / service and recreate it the dependencies are still met after the change. If blueprint is to be hidden completely, we may find a better alternative in SCR or even Felix Dependency Manager, but it does not matter too much for now. I agree with the idea of using a BOM instead of a parent if possible. I'm not very familiar, but this is less invasive. The real problems will come with the support of higher level annotations for JAXRS, JPA, etc... Not really sure how to handle those yet... 2015-09-09 16:32 GMT+02:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>: Hi all,I worked on a prototype about Karaf Boot. Let me give you some backgrounds and discuss about that all together. Why Karaf Boot ? ---------------- When you develop artifacts (bundles) to be deployed in Karaf, you can see that the actual time that you spend on your business code is finally largely less important that all the plumbing effort that you have to do (writing OSGi Activator, or blueprint/scr descriptor, etc). It means that your "go to market" is longer, and we should provide something that allows you to focus on your code. Even if SCR annotations is a very good step forward, some use cases are not so easy to do (JPA, JTA for instance). And anyway, you have to prepare your pom.xml with different plugin and dependency. Moreover, when you have your artifacts, you have to prepare Karaf container, and deploy those artifacts there. Even if it's "container" approach is the most important for me, we can give even more flexibility by providing a way to embed and prepare Karaf in a ready to execute jar/artifact. What is Karaf Boot ? -------------------- Karaf Boot provides four components: * karaf-boot-parent is the Maven parent pom that your project just inherit: that's all ! All plugins, dependencies, etc are described in this parent, you even don't have to define packaging as bundle, standard jar is fine. * karaf-boot (coming with karaf-boot-parent) provides annotations that you use directly in your business code (like @Bean, @Service, @Reference, @Inject, etc): again, your focus on your code, karaf-boot deals with the plumbing. * karaf-boot-maven-plugin (coming with karaf-boot-parent) scan the classes and generate a blueprint XML. For now, I'm using blueprint generation (because we can cover lot of use cases, for instance, I plan to provide @rest annotation that will generate blueprint XML with cxf jaxrs server, etc). * karaf-boot-starter is the module providing a convenient way to embed, configure and bootstrap Karaf. Just to illustrate this, let's take a look on the karaf-boot-sample-simple. The pom.xml is really simple: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <project xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0"; xmlns:xsi=" http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"; xsi:schemaLocation=" http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0 http://maven.apache.org/xsd/maven-4.0.0.xsd";> <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion> <parent> <groupId>org.apache.karaf.boot</groupId> <artifactId>karaf-boot-parent</artifactId> <version>1.0.0-SNAPSHOT</version> </parent> <artifactId>karaf-boot-sample-simple</artifactId> <version>1.0.0-SNAPSHOT</version> </project> You can see, the only thing that the developer has to do: define karaf-boot-parent as parent pom. That's all. Now, in the code, you have just one bean that we want to run: package org.apache.karaf.boot.sample.simple; import org.apache.karaf.boot.Bean; import org.apache.karaf.boot.Init; @Bean(id = "simple-bean") public class SimpleBean { @Init public void simple() { System.out.println("Hello world"); } } You can see the @Bean and @Init karaf-boot annotations. The karaf-boot-maven-plugin will generate the blueprint descriptor using this. Current Status -------------- I pushed Karaf Boot structure there: https://github.com/jbonofre/karaf-boot It's a mix of rewrapping of existing code (from aries, pax-exam, etc) and additions. I created the annotations, I'm now working on the karaf-boot-maven-plugin based on Christian's work in aries (I'm actually scanning the boot annotations now, and generating the XML). I will push new changes later today and tomorrow. Open Questions --------------- * For now, I would prefer to be 'artifacts' and 'resources' generator: I think it's better than to depend to a feature running in Karaf, but it's open to discussion. * I'm now generating blueprint. Probably native OSGi or scr generation can make sense. * I'm generating bundles: thanks to the Karaf4 features resolver, as the bundles provide requirements/capabilities metadata, I think it's a good start. However, maybe it's worth to be able to create features, kar, profile. Thoughts ? Thanks, Regards JB -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré [email protected] http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com--Jean-Baptiste Onofré [email protected] http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com-- Jean-Baptiste Onofré [email protected] http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
-- Jean-Baptiste Onofré [email protected] http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
