ace-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcel Offermans <>
Subject Re: ACE roadmap Jira
Date Sun, 30 Jan 2011 11:39:09 GMT
Hello JB,

The absolute minimum requirement is that we release the sources. I would definitely be in
favor of having a single archive that contains all of them and that can be unpacked and built
with a single command. The result of "building" should at the minimum be a set of OSGi bundles,
but maybe we should also automatically generate some assemblies that can directly be "run".

As binaries, I would like to release two "assemblies", one containing the whole server, the
other containing a target that consists of an OSGi framework and the ACE management agent.
Both must be "unzip and run".

On 30 Jan 2011, at 7:58 , Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:

> regarding the release preparation, I think that we need to clean distribution. I think
that the users are a little lost with the current artifact delivery.

I would love to hear what confuses users the most right now, and if the idea mentioned above
would help.

> I'm working of an assembly, embedding Felix/Karaf to provide a runtime deployment platform.

You did see the ones we currently have, (ace-target-devserver and ace-target-devgateway)?

One thing that Angelo is still working on is this one:

That could replace the current target with a small launcher that, using the OSGi 4.2 launching
API can launch any framework you supply, and run it with a management agent. I think that's
the most elegant and simple way of bootstrapping OSGi with ACE.

The server now basically runs on a bare bones OSGi framework. Of course you can deploy a lot
of things alongside, and for the developer we do (things like a shell). Ultimately, the server
could also start out as a target and should be provisionable by a different ACE instance.
Of course you then get into the question "who provisions the first provisioning server" and
for that we need this assembly. :)

> My question is:
> - do we provide several artifacts (Web UI tarball/zip, file server tarball/zip, etc)
or one providing all modules (one tarball/zip with web UI, etc) ?

For one, I would not want to release the "file server" at all. It was more or less an intermediate
step to get ACE up and running and not intended for real use.

The server with web UI and the target I would want to release separately as stated above.

> WDYT ?
> Thanks
> Regards
> JB
> On 01/29/2011 01:11 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
>> Hello JB,
>> On 27 Jan 2011, at 6:45 , Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>> FYI, I created a Jira brainstorming umbrella to define the ACE roadmap:
>>> The purpose is to kind in mind our discussions and create child tasks
>>> that we will pick up.
>> My suggestion for implementing a roadmap would be to define versions in
>> Jira and start assigning issues to them. That way we can use the
>> "roadmap" feature of Jira to track progress:
>> So our first release would be 0.8.0 (for example), and we can start
>> assigning issues to it.
>>> Feel free to complete it.
>> In general I feel we should try to cut our first release relatively
>> soon, and try to get into a rhythm. Therefore in general I think we
>> should look at what's fairly stable now and start with that.
>> Another question I have is what we should release. ACE is very modular,
>> and can be assembled and configured in different ways. On the other
>> hand, a lot of bundles are related. In short I don't think it makes a
>> lot of sense releasing bundles one by one. I would be in favor of a
>> single release of all (stable) bundles.
>> Also, I would like to take the first release as an opportunity to
>> properly baseline all bundle and package versions, use a version policy
>> that conforms to the one the OSGi Alliance recommends and only bump
>> versions when things actually change. That means that our next release
>> will probably contain bundles and packages that will not all be the
>> same. This is very similar to the OSGi specification itself, that is
>> released as for example 4.2 but contains packages with versions like
>> 1.3, 1.2, 2.1, etc.
>>> @Angelo, I know that you're working hard on unit tests, etc. Feel free
>>> to append comments concerning next steps around this topic.
>> It's mainly integration tests that still need porting, as described in:
>> From the looks of it, Angelo has already made great progress here! Some
>> help from a Maven expert would be nice so we can properly hook up the tests.
>> Greetings, Marcel
> -- 
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> ---------------------------------
> HomePage
> ---------------------------------
> Contacts
> ---------------------------------
> OpenSource
> BuildProcess/AutoDeploy
> Apache ServiceMix
> -----------------------------------
> PGP : 17D4F086

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message