Maybe yes. Not sure. It's not obvious to me that using bnd files has an
impact on end users.
For instance, for Decanter, users just do feature:install, however the
bundles have been created.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Regards
JB
On 02/12/2016 01:02 PM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
Sorry JB I think you are wrong with this perception. A lot of the dev
decisions do influence users, especially the ones were people build on top.
sent from mobile device
Am 12.02.2016 12:53 nachm. schrieb "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" <[email protected]>:
Hi David,
For now, we are talking on the dev side of Karaf: from an user
perspective, it doesn't change anything (an user doesn't have to know bnd
to use Karaf).
Anyway, projects using Karaf can still use the configuration they want:
maven-bundle-plugin without bnd files, bndtools, or whatever.
Regards
JB
On 02/12/2016 12:50 PM, David Daniel wrote:
I have had the same experience as Milen and Christian but I think I come
to
a different conclusion. I originally came to karaf because of the easy
entrance into OSGI and we have a Maven build process that I could not move
from. I think many other people come to karaf for those same reasons.
Here is a conversation I had the other day where karaf was primarily being
used for its build process and its tight integration of maven with
features
https://groups.google.com/a/saiku.meteorite.bi/forum/#!topic/dev/4uiWj1g2EU0
I think even bnd is getting away from having to put things inside of the
bnd file and making sure you can configure osgi in other ways (Example
would be making classes ending in impl private and using annotations to
determine exports and imports through references. Even those elements you
discussed previously such as runtime properties and system packages are
more for the bndrun files so that bndtools can package and launch
appropriately. I generally keep them out of the bnd file and let maven
handle those elements for my project. If you want to maintain a bndrun
file to test and use with bndtools that is different than requireing a bnd
file. My general feeling is that almost nothing will need to go into the
.bnd file soon (See this conversation
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bndtools-users/yV_B5B1cU3k) so
karaf should not require users to understand what it is. I think it will
be optional soon enough so it is better not to require it now. On the
other hand if developers like bnd tools then let them include an optional
bndrun file that they are responsible for maintaining. I think with java
9
alot of people will come to OSGI for the tooling and it will be important
to ease them into the OSGI build process as simply as possible.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Christian Schneider <
[email protected]> wrote:
On 12.02.2016 11:46, Milen Dyankov wrote:
For the record (in case you find some public evidence of me arguing the
opposite) some time ago I was totally against using bnd.bnd files. After
being kind of forced to do it for a while, I realized it doesn't really
make any difference in the effort that it takes to maintain those and at
the same time provides clearer separation of concerns. So I changed my
mind
:) !
Interestingly I have the same experience. I first hit bnd.bnd files in
some pax projects and thought they were a strange way to configure the
OSGi
setup. So at this time I was also rather against it. The more I worked on
it in pax and also while I did some experiments in bndtools the more I
liked the
style of bnd files. At some point then I migrated the Aries JPA project
to
it and I really like the result.
Christian
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
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
