Hello Sorry for late response, I'm stuck in savage and obscure world of JavaScript right now (webpack module federation....). Looking back at OSGi, it's seen as clear, pleasant and predictable environment ;)
anyway - here are my comments to JB's proposal: Be opinionated means that I propose to remove PAX * dependencies, > and provide Karaf services instead, very simple and opinionated (for > instance, instead of PAX Web, a simple Tomcat based service, instead > of PAX Logging, a simple slf4j/log4j only service, Pax Exam replaced > by JUnit 5 simple extensions, etc). > The main proposed change is to simplify the services in Karaf mostly for > the pax * parts. > There are two main reasons about that : > - having Karaf provided services would simplify the releases, dependency > management and security due diligence > - some pax components are very complex and we can have a simpler impl (and > maintainable) with Karaf opiniated service > > Specifically about pax web, it doesn’t mean necessary to not super OSGi web > spec. It’s mainly to focus on tomcat and Karaf impl as part of the Karaf > project. > For instance, pax-web will still be available (if people want to use > it), but Karaf will provide a web feature (as alternative). > > For URL and logging, Karaf will provide simplified mvn and wrap url > handlers, and opinionated Karaf logging service (only supporting slf4j > and log4j2). If users still want to use Pax URL and Pax Logging, they > will still be able to do so via custom distribution. > I have few questions, concerns about the above... 1. What exactly are "Karaf services"? Are these OSGi services? (registered with BundleContext.registerService(iface, object, properties)?) If not then what are the aspects that make them "services" - discoverability, interface, registration method (through annotations and build time processing? /META-INF/services? other?)? 2. Removing Pax + hiding OSGi seems complementary, but is OSGi going to be implementation detail of Karaf 5? or just deployment method (Minho / Felix Atomos?) If you say that pax-web will still be available, it means it needs full OSGi runtime (Felix, Equinox) underneath. Mind that the biggest obstacle when refactoring Pax Web 7 into Pax Web 8 was this entire "discoverability" mechanism, which allows you to scan bundles/fragments/wires looking for annotated web elements, SCIs and web-fragment.xml files... So if you hide OSGi under "Karaf services" and at the same time keep OSGi for those who want it, it'd be (sorry for analogy) like hiding an elephant under a napkin... :) 3. Pax URL and Pax Web accept configuration via ConfigAdmin. So again - you can't remove, you have to hide it (see #2). 4. Also for Pax Web - it required a lot of effort to make it "restartable". I mean even Tomcat/Jetty/Undertow itself keep each webapp in separate classloader, so you can kind of get rid of the webapp (undeploy) if you like. Pax Web pushes this to the extreme with whiteboard, where you can have filters from different bundles filtering access to servlets from different bundles and sending events to listeners from yet different bundles and everything is (should be) classloader-safe. Hinding it under non-hierarchical classloader may not be possible... 5. You've mentioned "main focus on Tomcat", but roughly speaking, Tomcat operates on entire webapps. It's only Pax Web (or Felix HTTP with Jetty) that make it possible to operate on the level of single servlet/filter/listener/SCI/... - how could such "Karaf web service for Tomcat" look like if you, say, wanted to register a servlet + filter? How would you package and register such servlet + filter? Not that I don't approve the plans (I like how you think about the future), or maybe simply my mind went numb after working for few weeks with rollup.js and typescript, but I don't feel like I can provide any constructive feedback besides asking for clarification... kind regards Grzegorz Grzybek wt., 11 cze 2024 o 16:20 Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > Hi JB- > > Makes sense, I figured I’d make the pitch for the pax-* merger in that > there is a lot of good use cases, stability and performance scenarios > already handled there. > > I look forward to assisting with the new karaf-* services. > > Thanks, > Matt Pavlovich > > > On Jun 11, 2024, at 3:45 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to clarify the PAX * questions. It would be still > > possible to use PAX * projects in Karaf 5.x, via the features (as > > today), but optional (not boot features anymore). > > > > As an alternative, we will have opinionated Karaf services features. > > > > For instance, pax-web will still be available (if people want to use > > it), but Karaf will provide a web feature (as alternative). > > > > For URL and logging, Karaf will provide simplified mvn and wrap url > > handlers, and opinionated Karaf logging service (only supporting slf4j > > and log4j2). If users still want to use Pax URL and Pax Logging, they > > will still be able to do so via custom distribution. > > > > The reasons to provide Karaf opinionated services are: > > 1. Karaf services are governed by the ASF rule, as Karaf, which is not > > the case for Pax > > 2. Pax * projects are great as "generic" OSGi services. On the other > > hand, it brings some complexity to be abstract enough for OSGi use > > cases and compliant with the OSGi specs. Karaf services will really be > > Karaf centric, not necessarily respecting the OSGi specs, but focusing > > on users' needs. > > 3. Facilitate Karaf tooling around to improve the developer experience. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 8:48 AM Francois Papon > > <francois.pa...@openobject.fr> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Serge, > >> > >> You can already build a static Karaf custom definition ready to start > >> without downloading all the dependencies at startup and create a docker > >> image with that. > >> > >> The most complex part with GraalVM in our case is all the 3rd party > >> dependencies and the OSGi framework. I'm afraid that it will not be > >> possible to be GraalVM compatible. > >> > >> I'm not sure to understand your thoughts about "full OSGi for dev", what > >> to you mean? > >> > >> regards, > >> > >> François > >> > >> On 08/06/2024 08:31, Serge Huber wrote: > >>> Hi François, > >>> > >>> I understand not everything has to be native, but for example for > Apache > >>> Unomi the default deployment is now mostly in containers, and > extensions > >>> are usually deployed mostly in development environments and then > statically > >>> packaged for production deployments. > >>> > >>> Having the option to then use Karaf 5 to leverage the benefits of > GraalVM > >>> Native Image would be very interesting I believe. I think other > >>> applications might be interested in these types of scenarios: full > OSGi for > >>> development, maybe pre-production and testing, and possibility to have > a > >>> more « static » deployment for production that could be compatible with > >>> native image. > >>> > >>> WDYT ? > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Serge… > >>> > >>> Le jeu. 6 juin 2024 à 11:09, Francois Papon < > francois.pa...@openobject.fr> > >>> a écrit : > >>> > >>>> Hi Serge, > >>>> > >>>> I don't think there is a benefit about GraalVM for long running > process > >>>> like Karaf. All java things doesn't need to be GraalVM native :) > >>>> > >>>> Another problem is that the community edition of GraalVM doesn't bring > >>>> all the improvement as the commercial one (GC, PGO...) > >>>> > >>>> regards, > >>>> > >>>> François > >>>> > >>>> On 05/06/2024 15:13, Serge Huber wrote: > >>>>> Hi JB thanks for the proposal, > >>>>> > >>>>> Sounds great to me. For me Karaf 5 should really be a natural fit for > >>>>> containerized deployments, making it super easy to package > applications > >>>>> that can then easily be scaled up (and down), so making it more > >>>> predictable > >>>>> and possibly more static can be a good thing. > >>>>> > >>>>> Is a goal also to make it compatible with GraalVM Native Image ? > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards, > >>>>> Serge. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 11:18 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi folks, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think it's time to prepare a new milestone for the project :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Short term (and first step) is to prepare the coming release: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. Apache Karaf 4.4.7 will be submitted to vote next week. It will > >>>> include: > >>>>>> * Improvement on the spring features repository (providing both > >>>>>> Spring 5 and Spring 6 features) > >>>>>> * Dependencies updates and minor fixes found on the 4.4.6 > release > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2. Apache Karaf 4.5.0 will be submitted to vote by the end of the > >>>>>> month. It will include (mainly): > >>>>>> * New spec features repository with Jakarta specs > >>>>>> * Bigger fixes for 4.5.0 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 3. Apache Karaf 5.0.0 > >>>>>> That's the big milestone, and I propose to have big and > opinionated > >>>>>> changes here. OSGi is an implementation detail of the runtime, still > >>>>>> exposed to the experimented users. > >>>>>> Be opinionated means that I propose to remove PAX * dependencies, > >>>>>> and provide Karaf services instead, very simple and opinionated (for > >>>>>> instance, instead of PAX Web, a simple Tomcat based service, instead > >>>>>> of PAX Logging, a simple slf4j/log4j only service, Pax Exam replaced > >>>>>> by JUnit 5 simple extensions, etc). > >>>>>> Another goal of Karaf 5 is to bring new tooling to improve dev > >>>>>> experience (annotation based distributions generation, etc). > >>>>>> Also, users will be able to smoothly deploy Spring powered or > >>>>>> Servlet applications without knowing/leveraging OSGi (especially the > >>>>>> import/export pattern). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thoughts ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards > >>>>>> JB > >>>>>> > >
