Thanks for the contribution JB. Personally I think we should maybe look into having a new name for it to make it easy to distinguish from Karaf ?
I'm especially worried if there ever is a Karaf 5 and K5 it's going to become very confusing. I don't have great alternative solutions for the moment but maybe something like Alembic, Cauldron, ... Regards, Serge... On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:38 PM Francois Papon <francois.pa...@openobject.fr> wrote: > Hi, > > May be yes, we should find a project name more not old Karaf related to > not lost the users. > > Regards, > > On 06/10/2022 15:25, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > 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 >
