Re: [DISCUSS] Accepting K5 in the Karaf ecosystem

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Just to be clear, my proposal is:

1. We keep all artifacts as they are today, no renaming, we keep the
same code repo, etc
2. On Jira, the karaf component will be renamed to osgi (as we have
decanter, cellar, etc)
3. On the website, Karaf "runtime" is already presented as a
subproject (karaf.apache.org), same level as Cellar, Decanter, etc.
So, Karaf "runtime" will appear as Karaf "OSGi" on the runtime, no big
change.
4. We will have then Karaf "Minho" as new subproject, presented as
Modulith Runtime

Thoughts ?

Regards
JB

On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 6:12 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:
>
> 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  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  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  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 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> It sounds good too !
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards
> > >>> JB
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:57 PM Jamie G. 
> > >> wrote:
> > 
> >  Perhaps something like Apache Karaf Sustineri ?
> > 
> >  - The sustainably sourced modulith runtime
> > 
> >  On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:22 AM Serge Huber  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. 
> > >> 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 hav

Re: [DISCUSS] Accepting K5 in the Karaf ecosystem

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

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  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  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  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 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It sounds good too !
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> JB
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:57 PM Jamie G. 
> >> wrote:
> 
>  Perhaps something like Apache Karaf Sustineri ?
> 
>  - The sustainably sourced modulith runtime
> 
>  On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:22 AM Serge Huber  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. 
> >> 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. 
> >> 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?
> >>
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Accepting K5 in the Karaf ecosystem

[Łukasz Dywicki]

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  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  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 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It sounds good too !
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:57 PM Jamie G. 
>> wrote:
 
 Perhaps something like Apache Karaf Sustineri ?
 
 - The sustainably sourced modulith runtime
 
 On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:22 AM Serge Huber  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. 
>> 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. 
>> 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Accepting K5 in the Karaf ecosystem

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Easy and straightforward ! I like it :)

+1 for Karaf OSGi and Karaf Minho ?

Thanks,
Regards
JB

On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 1:54 PM Francois Papon
 wrote:
>
> May be we can rename Karaf 4.x to Karaf OSGi as it's mainly focus on it.
>
>
> On 07/10/2022 13:52, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > The idea is to be clear and consistent across the project:
> >
> > Karaf xxx for current Karaf 4.x runtime
> > Karaf Minho
> > Karaf Winegrower
> > Karaf Cellar
> > Karaf Cave
> > Karaf Decanter
> >
> > Like in Apache Felix.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 1:35 PM Francois Papon
> >  wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Ok for Apache Karaf Minho but please, don't rename Apache Karaf 4.x to
> >> Apache Karaf Classic :D
> >>
> >> regards,
> >>
> >> Francois
> >>
> >> On 07/10/2022 12:57, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 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  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 
>  wrote:
> > It sounds good too !
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:57 PM Jamie G. 
>  wrote:
> >> Perhaps something like Apache Karaf Sustineri ?
> >>
> >> - The sustainably sourced modulith runtime
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:22 AM Serge Huber  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. 
>  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. 
>  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
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Accepting K5 in the Karaf ecosystem

[Serge Huber]

Karaf Nouveau (like Beaujolais :))  ?
Karaf Lafite or Screaming Eagle (
https://financesonline.com/top-10-most-expensive-red-wines-in-the-world-cabernet-sauvignon-tops-the-list/)
for the OSGi Karaf :)

cheers,
  Serge...

ps : I'm just throwing ideas at this point to see what sticks, I'm not
trying to force anything :)
Serge Huber
CTO & Co-Founder
T +41 22 361 3424
9 route des Jeunes | 1227 Acacias | Switzerland
jahia.com 
SKYPE | LINKEDIN  | TWITTER
 | VCARD



> JOIN OUR COMMUNITY  to evaluate, get trained and
to discover why Jahia is a leading User Experience Platform (UXP) for
Digital Transformation.


On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 1:54 PM Francois Papon 
wrote:

> May be we can rename Karaf 4.x to Karaf OSGi as it's mainly focus on it.
>
>
> On 07/10/2022 13:52, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > The idea is to be clear and consistent across the project:
> >
> > Karaf xxx for current Karaf 4.x runtime
> > Karaf Minho
> > Karaf Winegrower
> > Karaf Cellar
> > Karaf Cave
> > Karaf Decanter
> >
> > Like in Apache Felix.
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 1:35 PM Francois Papon
> >  wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Ok for Apache Karaf Minho but please, don't rename Apache Karaf 4.x to
> >> Apache Karaf Classic :D
> >>
> >> regards,
> >>
> >> Francois
> >>
> >> On 07/10/2022 12:57, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 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  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 
>  wrote:
> > It sounds good too !
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:57 PM Jamie G. 
>  wrote:
> >> Perhaps something like Apache Karaf Sustineri ?
> >>
> >> - The sustainably sourced modulith runtime
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:22 AM Serge Huber 
> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Rega

Re: [DISCUSS] Accepting K5 in the Karaf ecosystem

[Francois Papon]

May be we can rename Karaf 4.x to Karaf OSGi as it's mainly focus on it.


On 07/10/2022 13:52, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:

The idea is to be clear and consistent across the project:

Karaf xxx for current Karaf 4.x runtime
Karaf Minho
Karaf Winegrower
Karaf Cellar
Karaf Cave
Karaf Decanter

Like in Apache Felix.

Regards
JB

On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 1:35 PM Francois Papon
 wrote:

Hi,

Ok for Apache Karaf Minho but please, don't rename Apache Karaf 4.x to
Apache Karaf Classic :D

regards,

Francois

On 07/10/2022 12:57, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 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  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 

wrote:

It sounds good too !

Regards
JB

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:57 PM Jamie G. 

wrote:

Perhaps something like Apache Karaf Sustineri ?

- The sustainably sourced modulith runtime

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:22 AM Serge Huber  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. 

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. 

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 

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Accepting K5 in the Karaf ecosystem

[Francois Papon]

:D

On 07/10/2022 13:37, Serge Huber wrote:

What about Karaf Zero for the new proposal ? :)

It's your fault François, you made me think of it. Worst part is that I
kind of like it :)

cheers,
   Serge...

On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 1:35 PM Francois Papon 
wrote:


Hi,

Ok for Apache Karaf Minho but please, don't rename Apache Karaf 4.x to
Apache Karaf Classic :D

regards,

Francois

On 07/10/2022 12:57, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 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  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 

wrote:

It sounds good too !

Regards
JB

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:57 PM Jamie G. 

wrote:

Perhaps something like Apache Karaf Sustineri ?

- The sustainably sourced modulith runtime

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:22 AM Serge Huber 

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. 

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.

Re: [DISCUSS] Accepting K5 in the Karaf ecosystem

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

The idea is to be clear and consistent across the project:

Karaf xxx for current Karaf 4.x runtime
Karaf Minho
Karaf Winegrower
Karaf Cellar
Karaf Cave
Karaf Decanter

Like in Apache Felix.

Regards
JB

On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 1:35 PM Francois Papon
 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Ok for Apache Karaf Minho but please, don't rename Apache Karaf 4.x to
> Apache Karaf Classic :D
>
> regards,
>
> Francois
>
> On 07/10/2022 12:57, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 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  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 
> >> wrote:
> >>> It sounds good too !
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> JB
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:57 PM Jamie G. 
> >> wrote:
>  Perhaps something like Apache Karaf Sustineri ?
> 
>  - The sustainably sourced modulith runtime
> 
>  On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:22 AM Serge Huber  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. 
> >> 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. 
> >> 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 re

Re: [DISCUSS] Accepting K5 in the Karaf ecosystem

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

No :) not classic.

I think something brand new in the wine wording ;)

Regards
JB

On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 1:35 PM Francois Papon
 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Ok for Apache Karaf Minho but please, don't rename Apache Karaf 4.x to
> Apache Karaf Classic :D
>
> regards,
>
> Francois
>
> On 07/10/2022 12:57, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 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  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 
> >> wrote:
> >>> It sounds good too !
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> JB
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:57 PM Jamie G. 
> >> wrote:
>  Perhaps something like Apache Karaf Sustineri ?
> 
>  - The sustainably sourced modulith runtime
> 
>  On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:22 AM Serge Huber  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. 
> >> 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. 
> >> 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-hous

Re: [DISCUSS] Accepting K5 in the Karaf ecosystem

[Serge Huber]

What about Karaf Zero for the new proposal ? :)

It's your fault François, you made me think of it. Worst part is that I
kind of like it :)

cheers,
  Serge...

On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 1:35 PM Francois Papon 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Ok for Apache Karaf Minho but please, don't rename Apache Karaf 4.x to
> Apache Karaf Classic :D
>
> regards,
>
> Francois
>
> On 07/10/2022 12:57, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 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  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 
> >> wrote:
> >>> It sounds good too !
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> JB
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:57 PM Jamie G. 
> >> wrote:
>  Perhaps something like Apache Karaf Sustineri ?
> 
>  - The sustainably sourced modulith runtime
> 
>  On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:22 AM Serge Huber 
> 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. 
> >> 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
> >> earli

Re: [DISCUSS] Accepting K5 in the Karaf ecosystem

[Francois Papon]

Hi,

Ok for Apache Karaf Minho but please, don't rename Apache Karaf 4.x to 
Apache Karaf Classic :D


regards,

Francois

On 07/10/2022 12:57, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 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  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 

wrote:

It sounds good too !

Regards
JB

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:57 PM Jamie G. 

wrote:

Perhaps something like Apache Karaf Sustineri ?

- The sustainably sourced modulith runtime

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:22 AM Serge Huber  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. 

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. 

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 

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Accepting K5 in the Karaf ecosystem

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

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  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 
> wrote:
> >
> > It sounds good too !
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 3:57 PM Jamie G. 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Perhaps something like Apache Karaf Sustineri ?
> >>
> >> - The sustainably sourced modulith runtime
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:22 AM Serge Huber  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. 
>  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. 
>  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 
>  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://jbon