Hereby all fixed and planned issues for SMX7 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SM/fixforversion/12333029
On 26.01.2016 23:18, Krzysztof Sobkowiak wrote: > Hi > > Like mentioned before I have created the ServiceMix assembly as a standard > assembly by defining the boot features in karaf-maven-plugin. My first try > with profiles was very unstable and I started the new try by transforming > step by step the existing ServiceMix 6 assembly. As one of the next steps I'm > going to define the profiles again and use them to define the assembly. > > Actually the assembly is built using only the 'assembly' goal of the > karaf-maven-plugin. Instead of the 'archive' goal I have used the custom > assembly definition and the assembly maven plugin. Reasons and potential > solutions to avoid usage of the assembly plugin: > > - The 'archive' goal produces 2 distributions - .zip and .tgz. We have > decided over a year ago to provide only one assembly. It's possible to > configure the karaf plugin to generate only one of the distribution - most > reasonable would be a zip file. But the unix scripts (e.g. karaf, client,...) > have not set the executable bit. *TODO*: We need a change in the 'archive' > goal to enable the executable bit for unix scripts in the generated zip file > (like in the tgz file). I'm going to raise an issue for this problem. > - We need the servicemix and servicemix.bat scripts as a copy of karaf and > karaf.bat scripts. It was easy to do with the assembly definition. *TODO*: we > need find another way to copy the renamed scripts into the assembly > - The custom assembly definition is used also to include in the assembly the > samples and Karaf demos. *TODO*: we should do this similar to the Karaf > assembly using the dependency plugin. > - The jar with the ServiceMix branding is copied into the lib directory using > the assembly definition as well. We can solve this using the dependency > plugin or by moving the branding properties from the branding jar into the > /etc directory. > > The current version seems to be almost stable. I have performed some manual > smoke tests which I usually do before releasing a new version and I have > found no problems with the new version. There are still some issues with > itests. > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SM-2787 - is the most irritating. I > think, the problem is caused with a huge log output generated using the DEBUG > log mode. At the beginning the problem happened randomly in each CXF itest > and some other itests. I have extracted the CxfWsn itest in a separate class, > changed the log level to INFO for all other itests and DEBUG for CxfWsn and > it fixed the problem in all itests except the CxfWsn itests. The CxfWsn > itests need the DEBUG mode, otherwise the test cannot find the expected log > entry produced by Camel. The solution would be the change of the route to > produce the log entry with INFO log level or find the problem why the itests > have problems with the big log output. > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SM-2813 - it's a problem with xstream > data format. The sample feature examples-drools-camel-cxf-server depends on > camel-xstream feature, but when the both features are installed together the > sample feature has problem with accessing the xstraem data format. Adding > camel-xstream to boot features solves the problem > - You can also look at following issues > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SM-2814, > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SM-2823, > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SM-2825 and check whether I have used a > correct solution and whether you have a better solution for the problems > > > There are still some tasks to do which I'm going to do in next days: > > - simplify the assembly creation by using the archive goal (like described > above, we need the change in Karaf plugin) > - use Karaf profiles to define the assembly > - upgrade to Camel 2.16.2 > - upgrade to ActiveMQ 5.13.0 > - test it with Java 8 (especially the ActiveMQ console) > - some other small issues > > I propose to release the M1 soon (even if some of the above tasks will not be > fixed) to let people test the distribution and find eventual new issues. > > Kindly regards > Krzysztof > > > > > On 26.01.2016 07:35, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >> Hi Krzysztof >> >> It sounds good to me. Please, push your changes, and we will review/update >> in a second step together. >> >> Thanks ! >> Regards >> JB >> >> On 01/25/2016 09:15 PM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> Sorry for my low activity last time but I had to make a small break in my >>> habitual contacts with computer and use my longer vacation to take a rest >>> ;) As a result I'd like to push today my changes for ServiceMix 7 >>> (especially the upgrade to Karaf 4). I think, it's not ideal yet and is not >>> implemented using profiles (as >>> discussed with JB), but my first try starting with profiles was very >>> unstable and I started with the standard assembly. I'm going to use >>> profiles as a next step. >>> >>> I'll write more about the current state and my observations later/tomorrow. >>> >>> Kindly regards >>> Krzysztof >>> >>> >>> -- Krzysztof Sobkowiak (@ksobkowiak) JEE & OSS Architect, Integration Architect Apache Software Foundation Member (http://apache.org/) Apache ServiceMix Committer & PMC Member (http://servicemix.apache.org/) Senior Solution Architect @ Capgemini SSC (http://www.capgeminisoftware.pl/)
