Hi, I fully support the decision to go for 7.3.x for now. I'm also fully aware of the work Greg did to Pax Web and what it needs to get finished :) So from my point of view, this is the best we as a community can do right now. I wish I would be able to help Greg more than I did. So nobody is to blame here, sometimes we have to face the facts :)
regards, Achim Am Sa., 5. Sept. 2020 um 18:57 Uhr schrieb Francois Papon < [email protected]>: > Hi guys, > > Nobody has to be blame. > > All this project are community projects and all contributions are > important. > > Thanks for all the great work made on PaxWeb! > > regards, > > François > [email protected] > > Le 05/09/2020 à 05:57, Jean-Baptiste Onofre a écrit : > > Hi Grzegorz > > > > Thanks for all the details. > > > > And don’t get me wrong: I don’t blame anyone and there’s no worry at all > ! > > > > The purpose is just to move forward on 4.3.0. > > > > So, after a long thinking, Karaf 4.3.0 with Pax Web 7.3.x is the smarter > and reliable move IMHO. > > We will update to Pax Web 8 when ready. > > > > Thanks again for all your effort in Pax Web 8 and your great work. > > I also take part of the blame to not have helped you more (it’s gonna > change, promise). > > > > Regards > > JB > > > >> Le 4 sept. 2020 à 18:51, Grzegorz Grzybek <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >> > >> Hello > >> > >> I'm the one responsible for the delay of Pax Web 8, but also (to > >> counterweight the blame), I'm the one who picked up the master branch > and > >> tried to refactor it the way I did with Pax Logging ;) > >> > >> As we know, felix-http is a great OSGi CMPN R7 Whiteboard (and Http > >> Service) implementation where everything is implemented in a single > >> "dispatcher servlet" added to single Jetty's ServletContextHandler. > >> On the other hand, Pax Web is waaaaaaay more (WARs, JSPs, "mapping" > >> whiteboard, welcome files, etc.). > >> > >> My initial goal about "refactor Pax Web" was actually > >> https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/PAXWEB-1123 ("HTTP Whiteboard and > selection > >> of the ServletContextHelper") - what could possibly go wrong? :) When I > >> checked how Pax Web 7.x (and current master branch) handles "contexts", > >> after a few months of looking/reading at the code (started April 2019!) > I > >> decided to refactor the core model of Pax Web, where each web "element" > may > >> be associated with one or MORE "osgi contexts" which in turn point to a > >> single "servlet context" (in N:1) relation. > >> > >> I described the design in > >> > http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Fwd-PAX-WEB-State-of-Pax-Web-8-td4058782.html > >> > >> So, the actual Whiteboard spec compliance is almost done and it was very > >> deep refactoring indeed (I tried to preserve the great work of others) > and > >> these standard bits are missing: > >> - tests for preprocessors (because the machinery is already there) > >> - tests for changing registration properties of ServletContextHelper > OSGi > >> service > >> - per ServletContextHelper session handling > >> > >> So we're very close to felix-http. > >> > >> The problem is that because I refactored the "core" of Pax Web so > deeply, I > >> still didn't touch pax-web-extender-war (though I had this component in > >> mind in every step of the refactoring) - I don't expect BIG problems > >> "enabling" this in Pax Web 8. > >> > >> I wrote about ServletContainerInitializers here: > >> > http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/HEADS-UP-Releases-schedule-4-2-10-4-3-0-RC2-Winegrower-1-0-tp4058780p4058834.html > >> but today I made good progress with dynamic registration of > >> servlets/filters/listeners from within SCIs (a must-have for JSPs and > JSFs). > >> > >> So we can soon release Pax Web 8 with MUCH better R6/R7 compliance but > with > >> missing old, commonly used Pax Web stuff (WARs...) > >> > >> Mind that as JBO said - there are no big differences between Whiteboard > R6 > >> and R7 (and the annotations he's mentioned are actually not preserved at > >> runtime! These are to be processed by APT...). The point is that Pax > Web 7 > >> had a major problem in handling this N:1 mapping between > >> ServletContextHelper and ServletContext and it required a total rewrite > of > >> the model... > >> > >> We can have Karaf 4.3.0 with Pax Web 7.3.x which differs from 7.2.x in > two > >> aspects: > >> - Undertow 1.x → 2.0.x (Servlet API 3 → 4) > >> - Tomcat 8 → 9 (Servlet API 3 → 4) > >> - Jetty is not changed because the only Jetty that supports Servlet API > 4 > >> is ... Jetty 10 which at the same time requires JDK 11. > >> > >> I wrote about Pax Web 7.3.x as being a "technical preview" here: > >> https://groups.google.com/g/ops4j/c/6nF78NKs2qA/m/oRUxNtSyAQAJ > >> > >> I hope this clears the confusion and decreases my guilt ;) > >> > >> kind regards > >> Grzegorz Grzybek > >> > >> pt., 4 wrz 2020 o 18:19 Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> > napisał(a): > >> > >>> Hi Serge, > >>> > >>> In the R7, it’s mostly the new features on the Http Whiteboard spec: > >>> > >>> - the new whiteboard annotations (@HttpWhiteboardServletPattern, > >>> @HttpWhiteboardContextSelect, @HttpWhiteboardServletMultipart) > >>> - the pre-filtering preprocessor > >>> > >>> All the rest is exactly the same. > >>> > >>> So, no change in the existing, just new convenient preprocessor and > >>> annotation. > >>> > >>> As Pax Web already provides alternative to this, it’s not a big deal. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> JB > >>> > >>>> Le 4 sept. 2020 à 17:55, Serge Huber <[email protected]> a écrit : > >>>> > >>>> Hi JB, > >>>> > >>>> Yeah I know the feeling of not liking to wait for releases :) > >>>> > >>>> Could you give an example of the missing 10%? > >>>> > >>>> Anyway I think it makes sense and anyway maybe we should start > working on > >>>> R8 & Karaf 5 ? :) > >>>> > >>>> So here's a non-binding +1. > >>>> > >>>> cheers, > >>>> Serge... > >>>> > >>>> Serge Huber > >>>> CTO & Co-Founder > >>>> T +41 22 361 3424 > >>>> 9 route des Jeunes | 1227 Acacias | Switzerland > >>>> jahia.com <http://www.jahia.com/> > >>>> SKYPE | LINKEDIN <https://www.linkedin.com/in/sergehuber> | TWITTER > >>>> <https://twitter.com/sergehuber> | VCARD > >>>> <http://www.jahia.com/vcard/HuberSerge.vcf> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> JOIN OUR COMMUNITY <http://www.jahia.com/> to evaluate, get trained > and > >>>> to discover why Jahia is a leading User Experience Platform (UXP) for > >>>> Digital Transformation. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 5:46 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> Hi guys, > >>>>> > >>>>> I have to take my duty as Karaf PMC ;) > >>>>> > >>>>> Clearly Karaf 4.3.0 is waiting for way too long: 4.3.0-SNAPSHOT > started > >>> on > >>>>> Feb 11, 2019 ! > >>>>> > >>>>> I discussed with Greg earlier today, and we still have work to do for > >>> Pax > >>>>> Web 8.0. > >>>>> > >>>>> As I don’t want to hold Karaf 4.3.0 any longer, I took the decision > to > >>>>> move forward and upgrade Karaf 4.3.0 to Pax Web 7.3.x. > >>>>> If Pax Web 7.3.x doesn’t fully cover R7, it covers 90% of the spec, > and > >>>>> I’m pretty sure most of the users don’t use the pending 10%. > >>>>> > >>>>> So, here’s my proposal: > >>>>> - I’m working on Pax Web 7.3.9 preparation during the week end > (updating > >>>>> container, etc) > >>>>> - In the meantime, I’m preparing Karaf 4.3.0 with a cleanup of the > >>>>> features and easy choice between Pax Web and Felix HTTP for the HTTP > >>> service > >>>>> - In also reviewing the Jira to include the maximum I can in 4.3.0. > >>>>> > >>>>> Reasonably, I think I will submit Karaf runtime 4.3.0 to vote next > week > >>>>> (strong commitment). > >>>>> > >>>>> If you have any concern or comment about this plan, please let me > know. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks ! > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards > >>>>> JB > >>> > -- Apache Member Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> Co-Author of Apache Karaf Cookbook <http://bit.ly/1ps9rkS>
