Hi Mike,
What we did there for a few other projects, is provide a bill-of-materials POM that can be included using Maven's import scope. It doesn't solve all the issues, but it does allow people to quickly define managed dependencies for Camel, Karaf, CXF, ... We could fairly easily generate such a POM file, I think. One drawback of this approach is that it doesn't provide you with properties that define these versions, but on the plus side, it doesn't force users to inherit from a parent POM of ours (for which they usually have to override things like SCM urls or Apache release related plugins). If we use our own examples to document the approach, that might take us a good step in the right direction. If that sounds OK, feel free to raise a JIRA issue for this in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SM Regards, Gert Vanthienen On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Mike K <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello SMX team, > > Would you mind to think about creating parent POM that can define all > versions for direct dependencies of Karaf, Camel, AMQ and CXF? > Currently each project has own "parent" and current SMX uses NMR external > POM that makes very difficult component version upgrades. > No, I don't know how to do it right to have in parallel SMX parent and each > top component parent, where component parent will not be used for > dependencies version definition. > For example, something will parse each (Karaf, Camel, CXF, AMQ) parent POMs > and append appropriate info to new SMX parent POM, resulting POM will have > all versions in single place, yes it will rebuild all top components to get > SMX. > > Right now versions are hardcoded at component parent POM, for example Camel > <jackson-version>1.9.12</jackson-version> > <jackson2-version>2.2.2</jackson2-version> > <jackrabbit-version>2.2.12</jackrabbit-version> > <jain-sip-ri-bundle-version>1.2.154_2</jain-sip-ri-bundle-version> > <jasper-bundle-version>6.0.36_1</jasper-bundle-version> > <jasypt-bundle-version>1.9.1_1</jasypt-bundle-version> > <jasypt-version>1.9.1</jasypt-version> > > If I need to use in resulting SMX Jackson 1.9.13 than it breaks Camel routes > due to version mismatch and so on. > > PaxLogging even more complicated. > > Mike. > > > -----Original Message----- From: Cristiano Costantini > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:56 AM > > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix > > I fully agree with the strategy proposed by Krzysztof ;-) > > Il martedě 11 febbraio 2014, Krzysztof Sobkowiak <[email protected]> > > ha scritto: > >> I think, the enterprise features extracted form Karaf should be still part >> of Karaf project (as a sub-project) as the features should be in >> particular >> Karaf extensions which can be easily installed on vanilla Karaf. I think >> they are more related to Karaf than related to ServiceMix. ServiceMix will >> be only a custom Karaf distribution assembling the features needed for >> ESB. >> I don't think the ServiceMix distribution will include the EJB features - >> it will be rather installed on vanilla Karaf (adding the EJB >> functionality) or shipped as a custom distribution (KarafEE) than >> shipped >> with ServiceMix. I think, all enterprise features should be maintained by >> a Karaf subproject, which should also contain the current ServiceMix >> features, like Activiti. >> >> Best regards >> Krzysztof >> >> On 11.02.2014 12:34, Achim Nierbeck wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> sounds reasonable to me, we might be able to push those enterprise >>> features >>> of Karaf to ServiceMix. >>> So have "Released" Feature descriptors available from ServiceMix and a >>> pre-assembled ServiceMix Container with dedicated features. >>> This way it's easier to have those openEJB features and other stuff that >>> runs on top of Karaf at one place. >>> For example the right now kind of "neglected" WebConsole of Karaf could >>> be >>> moved here. >>> This way we'd have a one Console fit's them all, but again on feature >>> basis, so everyone is either free to install >>> and use it or use something different :) >>> >>> regards, Achim >>> >>> >>> 2014-02-11 11:55 GMT+01:00 Krzysztof Sobkowiak <[email protected] >>> >: >>> >>> Hi >>>> >>>> >>>> In my opinion we should have a custom Karaf distribution in Apache which >>>> assemblies Camel, CXF, ActiveMQ, some BPM (e.g. Activiti). It can still >>>> be >>>> ServiceMix. We should only think about making ServiceMix better >>>> upgradeable >>>> to the new Karaf kernel. I think also, we should start ServiceMix with >>>> Karaf 3.x. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> Krzysztof >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -- >> Krzysztof Sobkowiak >> >> JEE & OSS Architect | Technical Architect @ Capgemini >> Capgemini <http://www.pl.capgemini.com/> | Software Solutions Center < >> http://www.pl.capgemini-sdm.com/> | Wroclaw >> e-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> | >> Twitter: @KSobkowiak >> > > > --- > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus > protection is active. > http://www.avast.com >
