To my understanding it doesn't prevent OSGi, it just does not require it (very much in the spirit of Karaf letting you choose what you want to run Equinox/Felix, Log4j/SLF4j, etc).
In theory can an end user take their well formed application (features) and directly deploy them into K5 without refactoring? I've worked on numerous projects which started at Karaf 2, and have updated progressively to K3, K4. Does K5 represent a roadblock to evolution? On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 9:36 AM Łukasz Dywicki <l...@code-house.org> wrote: > > Hello, > Looking forward towards donation of it as a subproject with clear name. > Tehhnically speaking it is not Karaf 5 since it is not based on earlier > principles. Dropping osgi is large change which will confuse existing users. > Hence following the ActiveMQ Artemis story we should be clear it is a new > thing and has some things in common, but many more not inlined, with earlier > release. > > Best, > Łukasz > -- > Code-House > http://code-house.org > > > On 4 Oct 2022, at 18:35, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > > > Hi guys, > > > > As already discussed on the mailing list several times before, I think > > Karaf 5 (a.k.a K5) is now in a good first shape (usable). > > > > In a nutshell, K5 is a modulith runtime, able to launch and co-locate > > different kinds of modules/applications. It also provides a very > > simple services programming model. > > > > You can find documentation about K5 here: > > > > https://jbonofre.github.io/karaf5/ > > > > NB: I will add the tools documentation asap. > > > > You can find the current source code here: > > > > https://github.com/jbonofre/karaf5 > > > > NB: you can see the tests as kind of examples. > > > > Here's, basically my proposal I would discuss with you: > > > > 1. Create a dedicated repository for K5, something like > > http://github.com/apache/karaf-k5 > > 2. For issue tracker and CI/CD, I propose to use GitHub resources > > (GitHub Issues and GitHub Actions). It's now an accepted and possible > > option from the Apache Software Foundation standpoint. > > 3. For the website, I think karaf.apache.org should be just a landing > > page containing all "generic" topics about Apache Karaf project > > (mailing list, legal, etc) and then directed to Karaf 4 or K5, having > > dedicated sub websites for each. > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > Thanks, > > Regards > > JB
