I agree, this solution would suffice for now and impact would be nihil.

Op za 20 okt. 2018 om 14:25 schreef Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org>:

> Let's focus for a minute on having jetty as separate bundles. This will
> potentially create a lot of problems as people will use the wrong jetty
> version. I just recently updated from on 9.4.x version to the next
> 9.4.(x+1) version and our code was not even compiling anymore. Therefore
> ultimately our code is tied to a very specific version of Jetty.
>  From that PoV it's dangerous to not bundle jetty.
> My suggestion is still:
> - we bundle Jetty as today but add the missing service loader files.
> This bundle has code to support http2 if the additional stuff is installed.
> - for people needing http2 they install a number of more bundles and
> voila everything works.
>
> Unless this plan is not possible, I don't see a reason why we shouldn't
> go there?
>
> Carsten
>
>
> Am 19.10.2018 um 17:34 schrieb Raymond Auge:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:11 AM Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org
> > <mailto:cziege...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     Am 19.10.2018 um 17:06 schrieb Raymond Auge:
> >      > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 10:55 AM Carsten Ziegeler
> >     <cziege...@apache.org <mailto:cziege...@apache.org>>
> >      > wrote:
> >      >
> >      >> Well, you are assuming that people are using a tool which does
> the
> >      >> resolving. Today you can simply download the Apache Felix Jetty
> >     bundle,
> >      >> install and enjoy. No tooling required. With such a proposal
> we're
> >      >> breaking this experience
> >      >>
> >      >
> >      > Can I get a vote as to how many people actually get this
> experience?
> >      >
> >      > I feel this only works when you already know _exactly_ what you
> >     want, which
> >      > I do not feel is the norm.
> >
> >     Not sure if I can follow here, people know that they want the Jetty
> >     module, download it, install it and have a party. We've constantly
> >     seeing people in our mailing lists saying that.
> >
> >
> > I understand this. Perhaps we should simply offer an additional
> > packaging which relies on the jetty BOM as a dependency. The benefit
> > being we don't have to wait for Jetty to provide something special,
> > since they already provide the BOM for exactly this purpose.
> >
> > I feel most people do not go to the Felix website and download jars
> > except as part of experiments. It is my own experience that people use a
> > build tool which relies on dependencies stored in maven central (using
> > maven or gradle or some other build tool).
> >
> > In that way, and because felix.http.jetty is a implementation, they
> > don't care about how the transitive dependencies are handled or
> > provided; as long as the parts they need get into their deployment.
> >
> > - Ray
> >
> >
> >     While resolver based tooling is awesome, it's not the way all people
> >     work. Whether that is good or bad, does not matter. Requiring over 20
> >     bundles to be installed to get a single functionality working seems
> >     really like overkill.
> >
> >     Regards
> >     Carsten
> >
> >      >
> >      > - Ray
> >      >
> >      >
> >      >>
> >      >> Carsten
> >      >>
> >      >> Am 19.10.2018 um 16:10 schrieb Raymond Auge:
> >      >>> I know in the past I argued against exposing all the jetty
> >     bundles. But I
> >      >>> feel I was probably wrong back then. I think that with the
> >     jetty BOM and
> >      >>> the OSGi resolver, figuring out which bundles you need, and
> >     then adding
> >      >>> additional ones to suite your case, is not so hard.
> >      >>>
> >      >>> Furthermore, Service Loader Mediator is not as painful anymore,
> >     just use
> >      >> an
> >      >>> R7 framework with the SpiFly framework extension.
> >      >>>
> >      >>> - Ray
> >      >>>
> >      >>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 9:30 AM Raymond Auge
> >     <raymond.a...@liferay.com <mailto:raymond.a...@liferay.com>>
> >      >>> wrote:
> >      >>>
> >      >>>> Why not start relying on the Jetty BOM and let people depend
> >     on the
> >      >>>> bundles what they want, at least this way they can let the
> >     resolver
> >      >>>> assemble the bundles they need?
> >      >>>>
> >      >>>> - Ray
> >      >>>>
> >      >>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 3:39 AM Carsten Ziegeler
> >     <cziege...@apache.org <mailto:cziege...@apache.org>>
> >      >>>> wrote:
> >      >>>>
> >      >>>>> The other option would be if jetty could provide us one fat
> >     bundle, to
> >      >>>>> avoid having users to install N bundles, it would just be one
> >      >> additional.
> >      >>>>>
> >      >>>>> Regards
> >      >>>>> Carsten
> >      >>>>>
> >      >>>>> Am 19.10.2018 um 09:35 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler:
> >      >>>>>> Hi Eric,
> >      >>>>>>
> >      >>>>>> I would like to come back to this discussion; I somehow
> >     forgot to
> >      >>>>> follow
> >      >>>>>> up on the old thread.
> >      >>>>>> If we go with a thin Apache Felix Jetty bundle, then you
> need to
> >      >>>>> install
> >      >>>>>> a lot of other bundles even if you don't use http2. So
> >     updating from a
> >      >>>>>> current version to this new version is not nice.
> >      >>>>>>
> >      >>>>>> How about we still include the jetty bundles inside, fix the
> >     service
> >      >>>>>> loader configuration by including it - but do not include
> >     the other
> >      >>>>>> things needed for http2 support. So if you're not using
> >     http2, it
> >      >> works
> >      >>>>>> like today.
> >      >>>>>> If you use http2 you install additionally spifly and what
> >     else is
> >      >>>>>> required to make it work.
> >      >>>>>>
> >      >>>>>> Would that work?
> >      >>>>>>
> >      >>>>>> Regards
> >      >>>>>> Carsten
> >      >>>>>>
> >      >>>>>> Am 18.10.2018 um 19:59 schrieb Eric Norman:
> >      >>>>>>> Yes, with a few changes to the felix.http code it is
> >     possible to make
> >      >>>>> it
> >      >>>>>>> work.
> >      >>>>>>>
> >      >>>>>>> I stashed the code changes in my github fork at
> >      >>>>>>> https://github.com/enapps-enorman/felix which I think you
> have
> >      >> already
> >      >>>>>>> discovered?
> >      >>>>>>>
> >      >>>>>>> I would be willing to initiate a PR from the fork, but
> >     unfortunately
> >      >>>>> the
> >      >>>>>>> http/2 support doesn't work without changing how the
> felix.http
> >      >> bundle
> >      >>>>> is
> >      >>>>>>> packaged as discussed on the felix mailing list at:
> >      >>>>>>>
> >     https://www.mail-archive.com/users@felix.apache.org/msg18187.html
> >      >>>>>>>
> >      >>>>>>> The felix community seemed reluctant to make the packaging
> >     changes to
> >      >>>>> the
> >      >>>>>>> felix.http bundle so I didn't send the PR at the time.
> >      >>>>>>>
> >      >>>>>>>
> >      >>>>>>> Regards,
> >      >>>>>>>
> >      >>>>>>> Eric
> >      >>>>>>>
> >      >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:04 AM Naftali <nvdl...@gmail.com
> >     <mailto:nvdl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >      >>>>>>>
> >      >>>>>>>> Hi, is there any way to enable enable HTTP/2 support in
> >     the embedded
> >      >>>>>>>> felix
> >      >>>>>>>> jetty?
> >      >>>>>>>>
> >      >>>>>>>> Greetz Naftali
> >      >>>>>>>>
> >      >>>>>>>
> >      >>>>>>
> >      >>>>>
> >      >>>>> --
> >      >>>>> Carsten Ziegeler
> >      >>>>> Adobe Research Switzerland
> >      >>>>> cziege...@apache.org <mailto:cziege...@apache.org>
> >      >>>>>
> >      >>>>>
> >     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >      >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
> >     <mailto:users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org>
> >      >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
> >     <mailto:users-h...@felix.apache.org>
> >      >>>>>
> >      >>>>>
> >      >>>>
> >      >>>> --
> >      >>>> *Raymond Augé* <
> http://www.liferay.com/web/raymond.auge/profile>
> >      >>>>    (@rotty3000)
> >      >>>> Senior Software Architect *Liferay, Inc.* <
> http://www.liferay.com>
> >      >>>>    (@Liferay)
> >      >>>> Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance <http://osgi.org>
> >      >>>> (@OSGiAlliance)
> >      >>>>
> >      >>>
> >      >>>
> >      >>
> >      >> --
> >      >> Carsten Ziegeler
> >      >> Adobe Research Switzerland
> >      >> cziege...@apache.org <mailto:cziege...@apache.org>
> >      >>
> >      >>
> >     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >      >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
> >     <mailto:users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org>
> >      >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
> >     <mailto:users-h...@felix.apache.org>
> >      >>
> >      >>
> >      >
> >
> >     --
> >     Carsten Ziegeler
> >     Adobe Research Switzerland
> >     cziege...@apache.org <mailto:cziege...@apache.org>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Raymond Augé*
> > <http://www.liferay.com/web/raymond.auge/profile> (@rotty3000)
> > Senior Software Architect *Liferay, Inc.*
> > <http://www.liferay.com> (@Liferay)
> > Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance <http://osgi.org>
> (@OSGiAlliance)
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> Adobe Research Switzerland
> cziege...@apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
>
>

Reply via email to