Hi, I don't use Karaf5, but K5 ;)
And yes, the first release would be K5 1.0 (for instance, 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, etc, etc). Regards JB On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:12 PM Jamie G. <jamie.goody...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Agreed that proper naming and transition/migration guides will be > necessary then to guide users. > > A question on the name "Karaf5" - what would its first release version > be? 1.0.0? 5.0.0? > It may be a little awkward to search Karaf5 2.0 or Karaf5 6.0. as it > matures/evolves. > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 10:10 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > > Hi Jamie, > > > > Correct: we can imagine having the karaf-k4 module providing the same > > support as Karaf (4): OSGi, features service, etc. > > > > To be honest, that's not my intention (I don't want to have K4 and K5 > > coupled somehow together), but possible. > > > > IMHO, we will have Karaf users and K5 users, different usage. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 2:21 PM Jamie G. <jamie.goody...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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
