Hello My 2¢ about Pax. I don't have any strong opinion on the plan and I simply agree. I was only wondering about ASF governance - is it ok to move (fully/partially/automatically/manually) from issues.apache.org to GH?
Now about Pax - as suggested, I see <repository> for pax web is almost removed from Karaf standard features ( https://github.com/apache/karaf/pull/1934). This makes Karaf distro ready to install any features you like regarding web without strong opinion on which (pax? felix-http?) is "opinionated" by Karaf. Pax Web 8 (Jetty 9, Tomcat 9, Undertow 2.2, JDK8+) and 9 (Jetty 10, Tomcat 9, Undertow 2.2, JDK11+) are in kind of maintenance mode - I fix issues (thanks community!) as they arrive and I try to keep runtimes up to date. Last week I've rebased my work on Pax Web 10 (Jetty 12, Tomcat 10.1, Undertow 2.3, JDK 17+) on top of latest Pax Web 9 and as discussed almost all I need is ready: - OSGi CMPN 8.1 no longer includes "chapter 102: HttpService", so I moved this interface to org.ops4j.pax.web.service package - there's no other option - OSGi CMPN 8.1 chapter 140 (Servlet Whiteboard) is implemented in Pax Web 10 - I used it to check if Jolokia 2 (jakarta.servlet based) can be whiteboard-registered - OSGi CMPN 8.1 chapter 128 (Web Applications) is not updated from javax.servlet to jakarta.servlet, but this kind of "special" OSGi CMPN specification, because there's no API, only definition of some behaviors related to deployment of WARs - and most of the work (OSGi-fying non-OSGi WAR archives) is done by Pax URL 3.0 (not released yet, see https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.url/commits/url-3.0.x/) What held me in November 2023 (when I stopped working on Pax Web 10) was not the difficulty of OSGi CMPN implementation (it was roughly done), but the amount of itests in Pax Web 8/9 that didn't work in Pax Web 10 - but mostly related to things like CDI, JSF and Aries JAX-RS (based on CXF). The problem was the quality of jakarta.servlet based libraries which were not proper OSGi bundles (MyFaces, Prime Faces, Weld, Aries, ...) So now after I spent some time rebasing, I want to release Pax Web 10 soon™ without bothering too much on _all_ MyFaces/PrimeFaces/CDI tests. I'll keep you informed. kind regards Grzegorz Grzybek pt., 21 lut 2025 o 08:41 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> napisał(a): > Hi folks, > > I would like to share the roadmap to Karaf 4.5.0. > > Karaf 4.5.0 will contain: > - a new "simple" features service (flat/simple resolver) > - new Karaf core services as alternatives to Pax * modules (replacing > Pax Logging by karaf-logging, replace Pax URL by karaf-url (with just > the JDK HTTP Client), ... > - more Karaf distributions, opinionated about the content: minimal (as > today but without Pax * cooupliing), simple (with the simple features > service, the alternatives to Pax *, ..), standard (the same as today > but with updated versions, we will discuss to "promote" simple as > standard for Karaf 4.6.x), integration (based on standard with Camel, > ActiveMQ, ...), cloud (based on simple with opentelemetry, k8s > support, ..., by default) > > As we did for Decanter, I will use Karaf 4.5.0 milestone to switch to > GitHub: > - GitHub Issues instead of Jira (the idea is not to migrate everything > from Jira to GH Issues, but to do it "manually" to do a meaningful > triage. > - GitHub Actions instead of Jenkins for CI/CD > It works well for Decanter (https://github.com/apache/karaf-decanter). > > Another work we should do is about the website. I think it would be > great to use Docusaurus to facilitate the updates and maintenance. > Website content should be updated too, including easily the > documentation on the website (thanks to md). > Any volunteers for that ? > > So, now about the ETA: > 1. Regarding "move to GitHub", if no objection, I will start the > effort today, creating .asf.yaml, GH workflows, creating GH Issues > with milestones > 2. Regarding the new "simple" features service, I already have > something. I think I can have a PR by end of next week. > 3. Regarding the new karaf services (alternatives to Pax *), I have > karaf-logging and karaf-url almost done (PRs will follow ~ 2 weeks). I > started karaf-web (powered by Tomcat, not depending on OSGi > HttpService, it's a pure Karaf Http service). I should be able to > share a draft PR. > Reasonably, we can plan Karaf 4.5.0 with all this in May. > > However, I have a question for the community: maybe, considering the > number of important changes, it makes sense to use Karaf 5.0.0 instead > of 4.5.0 ? Thoughts ? > > Thanks ! > Regards > JB >
