Quoting one statement of yours:
So for long running apps graal cost is wayy more than the runtime gain
> and I guess it is where Karaf 5 will sit, long running aggregated and
> unified apps (by providing a single admin interface for all kind of apps
> and not a different one for
Just to be concrete about Karaf wording:
- Library: class loader at Karaf system level
- Service: loaded at Karaf system level
- Profile: class loader (not attended at karaf system level)
- Module: one class loader eventually with profile parent class loader and
karaf system classloader
I hope
Le jeu. 25 mars 2021 à 09:35, Grzegorz Grzybek a
écrit :
> Thanks Romain for the details! (see inline)
>
> czw., 25 mar 2021 o 08:31 Romain Manni-Bucau
> napisał(a):
>
> > Le jeu. 25 mars 2021 à 07:13, Grzegorz Grzybek a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > Good morning!
> > >
> > > śr., 24 mar 2021 o 19:57
Thanks Romain for the details! (see inline)
czw., 25 mar 2021 o 08:31 Romain Manni-Bucau
napisał(a):
> Le jeu. 25 mars 2021 à 07:13, Grzegorz Grzybek a
> écrit :
>
> > Good morning!
> >
> > śr., 24 mar 2021 o 19:57 Romain Manni-Bucau
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > in terms of arch yes, the key
Good morning!
śr., 24 mar 2021 o 19:57 Romain Manni-Bucau
napisał(a):
> in terms of arch yes, the key feature is to have a tree classloader and not
> a graph (drops all the build complexity of OSGi and enable scanning
> pluggability, yeah).
>
Graph → Tree sounds like OSGi → JavaEE...
This can
in terms of arch yes, the key feature is to have a tree classloader and not
a graph (drops all the build complexity of OSGi and enable scanning
pluggability, yeah).
In terms of service since the launcher is a monolith it has the key
advantage to be able to scan all then dispatch so I guess we can
Hi Romain,
About OSGi, the way I did it (up to now), it’s as you describe:
- Karaf "launcher"
— Libraries service
— Profiles service
— SpringBootModuleService
— OsgiModuleService
— MicroprofileModuleService (not yet started)
The framework is only started when the first OSGi module is deployed.
Actually, spec like as DocuentBuilder would be rather a library, shared by all
launchers.
I would rather say that Karaf 5 is a runtime in the way of launcher. If we
consider an application server as launcher + some key turn features, then
Karaf5 could be considered as an new light app server.
Hi,
Actually, you will have three class loader levels:
- Level1: Karaf itself/Karaf services/libraries class loaders
- Level2: profiles class loader
- Level3: OSGi module running in the internal framework (inheriting first level)
- Level3: Spring Boot applications classloaders
- Level3: other
Hello
OSGi Core R8 still assumes req/cap model[1] and resolution:
The Framework must resolve bundles.
>
If OSGi (and thus resolution) is _internal_, what kind of "classpath"
("module path"?) will users see? Looking forward for 1-feet overview of
Karaf 5 ;)
Is Connect specification[2] the
Hi guys,
As you probably know, we are working on first Karaf 5 MVP, which is a complete
Karaf refactoring.
We will share some details soon, but I can already inform you that internally,
it’s powered by OSGi R8 (but you will see that it’s more an internal point).
Regards
JB
11 matches
Mail list logo