OK, so let's focus on "K5" name. Actually, I wanted the opposite and give a chance for any subproject: for most people karaf == the runtime (they don't necessarily see winegrower, decanter, etc.
But OK, let's keep the Karaf name and use a new subproject name. Maybe we can use just a tag name: no rename, but on the website use Karaf (OSGi) to clearly stand it's the OSGi runtime. Regards JB On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 9:09 PM Łukasz Dywicki <l...@code-house.org> wrote: > > Why rename karaf if it is what it was since begining? > Karaf is with us since more than decade changing names is not going to help > it. More over it will definitely confuse people and users as we do not have a > communication channel to all of them other than this mailing list and website. > We had multiple subprojects under Karaf till now. New runtime is yet another > subproject. If it will evolve into something larger it can become its own TLP > just like Karaf did back after leaving ServiceMix core and Felix. > For now we dont know how it will grow hence I would abstain from making any > changes to primary project/use. > > Best > Łukasz Dywicki > -- > Code-House > http://code-house.org > > > On 7 Oct 2022, at 12:57, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > > > My preference is Apache Karaf Minho. > > > > What do you think to rename Karaf 4.5.0 with a different name too ? In > > order to avoid any confusion: Apache Karaf is the umbrella project and we > > will have only subprojects (like in Felix). > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > Regards > > JB > > > >> Le jeu. 6 oct. 2022 à 20:12, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >> > >> +1 on bringing Karaf 5 into the Apache Karaf project. > >> > >> My $0.02 on naming is that perhaps the ‘5’ should drop off, since it’ll > >> have its own version number and in case w/ need a Karaf Runtime v5.x to > >> support all the OSGi + Jakarta + JDK changes coming. > >> > >> Regarding name ideas— I think short and simple is best! Boot, Blend, etc. > >> > >> Perhaps whittle it down to 2 or 3 ideas? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Matt Pavlovich > >> > >>> On Oct 6, 2022, at 8:59 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> It sounds good too ! > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> JB > >>> > >>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:57 PM Jamie G. <jamie.goody...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps something like Apache Karaf Sustineri ? > >>>> > >>>> - The sustainably sourced modulith runtime > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:22 AM Serge Huber <shu...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 > >>>>>> > >> > >>
