+1 agree that the work is really aligning the feature repos, and (at times) politely submitting fixes to upstream published features.
> On Jan 21, 2023, at 12:01 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Lukasz, > > Regarding the first point, if you take a look at the ServiceMix > mailing list past message, it has been discussed: we want to move the > used parts of ServiceMIx in Karaf, and propose alternatives for other > parts (like SMX and the new protocol handler proposal). > > Now, about the proposal: > 1. I don't propose a subproject, just a new assembly in Karaf OSGi > runtime as we have minimal and standard. The proposal is not to take > ServiceMix "as it is", but create an integration features repository > with cleanup. > 2. I don't see huge effort, only picking dependency features (the > features are still provided by third parties). For instance, today we > have the enterprise features repositories (containing eclipselink, > narayana, etc), the integration features repositories would contain > "turnkey" features. > > I don't see a difference with what we do in the itests today. > > Regards > JB > > > > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 9:57 PM Łukasz Dywicki <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I see its an interesting concept, however - given that SMX is still not >> at attic, I need to ask what is benefit of doing such large distribution >> within Karaf project itself? >> From technical point of view we need to separate dependencies to avoid >> cyclic dependencies, so Camel, CXF and others and we (Karaf) can be >> built. If we do it in separate sub-project, what's the difference to >> making it at servicemix? >> Shall we be using same version as Karaf or stick to different scheme? >> How that would look a like? >> >> Best, >> Łukasz >> >> On 19.01.2023 13:41, Jamie G. wrote: >>> +1 >>> >>> I agree with the direction. I've noted that most SMX deployments I see >>> have continued on with Apache Karaf. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jamie >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 6:46 AM Sobkowiak, Krzysztof >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 (binding) >>>> >>>> I think, it's time to do this step. It's a difficult for me to say it >>>> after many years of contribution in this community. I think the idea of >>>> ServiceMix as oss integration platform was great but it is simply in a >>>> long agony actually. I think it has a chance to survive in the Karaf >>>> community. >>>> >>>> When there are any features of current SMX distribution which will be >>>> not part of the integration distro (to not to make it too complicated) >>>> but are worth to survive, they can be simply described in a >>>> documentation as set of how-tos. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Krzysztof >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18.01.2023 13:44, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >>>>> Hi guys, >>>>> >>>>> The ServiceMix community is discussing about moving most of the SMX >>>>> parts into Karaf (the useful parts ;) ). >>>>> >>>>> As part of this move, the "main" ServiceMix distribution is mainly a >>>>> Karaf assembly. >>>>> >>>>> Currently, we have two distributions: "standard" >>>>> (apache-karaf-x.x.x.tar.gz) and "minimal" >>>>> (apache-karaf-minimal-x.x.x.tar.gz). >>>>> >>>>> I propose to add a new distribution (in assemblies): >>>>> apache-karaf-integration-x.x.x.tar.gz containing ready to go >>>>> Karaf/Camel/CXF/ActiveMQ smooth integration. >>>>> Concretely, it means: >>>>> - we will have integration features repository XML >>>>> - we will have a distribution based on this features repository >>>>> - we will have itest on this distribution with the best coverage we can >>>>> >>>>> If there is no objection, I will create the Jira and create a PR (as I >>>>> have almost all ready :)). >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts ? >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> JB
