karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Baptiste Onofré ...@nanthrax.net>
Subject Re: [Discuss] Handling of initial bundles
Date Sun, 06 May 2012 17:28:29 GMT
As I said in my previous e-mail, all depends of the proposed 
implementation. Maybe we can keep something clean and simple, also 
atomic, in Main.

But I'm agree with you about the fact that Main should be autonomous and 


On 05/06/2012 07:12 PM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
> Even though you and Christian are certainly right that maven and OSGi
> work quite well if the versions are kept right, but this
> isn't the focus here. So coming back to the initial question I agree
> with Guillaume, to better keep the main class
> lean and simple therefore I give a -1 on this.
> I don't want to see any dependencies to a features service what so ever
> in main.
> Thanx, Achim
> Am 05.05.2012 11:33, schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré:
>> Agree with Christian.
>> Leveraging Pax URL in Karaf is a key feature (even if sometime we fake
>> the Pax URL usage, like in startup.properties URLs).
>> Regards
>> JB
>> On 05/05/2012 08:52 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>> Well in this case you should use felix it uses a flat list of bundles
>>> :-)
>>> I think the maven centric aproach is the biggest benefit in karaf. Of
>>> course obr can help to make this even better but out there you almost
>>> find no obr repos.
>>> The big benefit with maven is that you have almost any lib available.
>>> You only need to know the artifact coordinates. For example it is great
>>> that you can install cxf or camle by just
>>> issuing two commands. How should that work without features that load
>>> artifacts from maven? As soon as all bundles are available in obr repos
>>> we can switch to this aproach but
>>> I think that is not the near future.
>>> I think the aproach of installing features and bundles from a company
>>> maven repo should be our recommended way of installing applications. I
>>> recommend to companies to split
>>> their development and deployment process at the maven repo. Developers
>>> build the sources and deploy the binaries to the company maven repo.
>>> Admins install from there. I think
>>> that is the cleanest technical aproach to devops we currently have.
>>> Of course this should include the use of the obr. As obr and maven often
>>> are incorporated in the same repository (like nexus or archiva) this
>>> should be achievable.
>>> Kar files are a dead end for me. They have their purpose when companies
>>> do not have a repository but they are completely anti modular. If you
>>> deploy two applications using kar files you have a lot of duplication
>>> and most of the advantages of osgi are gone.
>>> About the flar system repo. Why should that be a good idea? The good
>>> thing about the system repo as a maven repo is that it mimics the
>>> central repo. So users can be sure that our system repo is just a cache.
>>> All the artifacts in there are the same as in central. So the user knows
>>> that each of these jars is the "official" version. This is very helpful
>>> for example for doing licensing audits.
>>> Btw. I think maven and osgi are very compatible on the lowest level.
>>> Maven can supply single artifacts very well. It is only the dependency
>>> resolution that is not compatible but obr can help out with that.
>>> Christian
>>> Am 05.05.2012 04:04, schrieb David Jencks:
>>>> I think we should make karaf much less maven centric including:
>>>> -- system repo is flat, not maven structured, with file names enforced
>>>> as bundle-symbolic-name_bundle-version.jar. startup.properties can
>>>> then just have jar-name=start-level.
>>>> -- kar files use similar flat internal repo
>>>> -- non-kar features deprecated
>>>> -- heavily encourage use of obr.
>>>> maven and osgi are really not very compatible and trying to pretend
>>>> they are IMO leads to too many problems and suppresses the usefulness
>>>> of osgi.
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>> On May 4, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>> Please, keep the main file lean and simple, no dependencies on url
>>>>> handlers
>>>>> or features or OBR or anything.
>>>>> The less interactions we have with the framework, the less fixes
>>>>> we'll to
>>>>> do there and the more stable it will be.
>>>>> The idea is to bootstrap the osgi framework, all the real provisioning
>>>>> should be done in the osgi framework itself using the feature
>>>>> service or
>>>>> obr or anything else that is required.
>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Jean-Baptiste
>>>>> Onofré<jb@nanthrax.net>wrote:
>>>>>> It makes sense, and I don't want to use the OfflineFeatureService
>>>>>> (not
>>>>>> require) but we will certainly have to decide to some "restriction"
>>>>>> (for
>>>>>> instance, what do we do if a feature is define in a feature ;)).
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> JB
>>>>>> On 05/04/2012 08:18 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi JB,
>>>>>>> yes we do not use the real maven resolution. I thought about
>>>>>>> changing it
>>>>>>> but it would have too many dependencies.
>>>>>>> I did not mean to really use features. Rather to read the feature
>>>>>>> file
>>>>>>> instead of the startup.properties but still process and resolve
>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>> same way as before. So this should not add
>>>>>>> much complexity. We could use the OfflineFeatureService but I
>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>> it is really necessary.
>>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>> Am 04.05.2012 19:24, schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> As reminder, in startup properties we don't really use mvn
>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>> we construct a file URL from the mvn one, we don't really
use Pax
>>>>>>>> URL.
>>>>>>>> Anyway, it sounds good to me. I don't think users use anything
>>>>>>>> than the startup.properties.
>>>>>>>> Regarding a feature instead of startup.properties, it means
that we
>>>>>>>> have to load at least feature core. I'm not sure that it's
a good
>>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>>> because feature is already OSGi oriented, whereas in the
>>>>>>>> area we
>>>>>>>> start the framework (so we are not in the "OSGi area"). It's
>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>> but it means that even if we provide a features XML, it's
>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>> the feature service that will be use but a FeatureStartup
>>>>>>>> (like OfflineFeatureService that we use in the Karaf maven
>>>>>>>> So it means that we will have a dual bootstrap process which
>>>>>>>> feature:
>>>>>>>> - the "startup" feature (which doesn't really use the feature
>>>>>>>> service)
>>>>>>>> - the "boot" feature (which uses the feature service)
>>>>>>>> As the startup.properties is generated from a feature currently,
>>>>>>>> makes sense to directly use the feature.
>>>>>>>> All depends the way that it will be implemented, but basically
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>> On 05/04/2012 07:03 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>> on startup we currently use the following procedure.
>>>>>>>>> We read property karaf.auto.start from the file config.properties.
>>>>>>>>> This can be either a list of bundles separated by spaces
>>>>>>>>> "startup.properties" or "all".
>>>>>>>>> If it is all we replace karaf.auto.start with the list
of all
>>>>>>>>> bundles in
>>>>>>>>> the system dir. I think this option does not really make
>>>>>>>>> sense.
>>>>>>>>> If it is startup.properties then we replace karaf.auto.start
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> list of bundles specified in the file startup.properties.
>>>>>>>>> Additionally we either support mvn urls or paths which
>>>>>>>>> converted to
>>>>>>>>> mvn urls.
>>>>>>>>> This all is quite a lot of variability of which we use
>>>>>>>>> I propose to replace this in two steps:
>>>>>>>>> 1. Remove the karaf.auto.start property and always load
>>>>>>>>> bundles from
>>>>>>>>> startup.properties. Also only support mvn urls.
>>>>>>>>> This makes the code in main cleaner and makes it easier
for our
>>>>>>>>> users to
>>>>>>>>> understand how to change the startup bundles.
>>>>>>>>> 2. Remove the startup.properties and instead use a feature
name to
>>>>>>>>> determine the list of bundles to load
>>>>>>>>> The second step makes this even simpler and additionally
we can
>>>>>>>>> remove
>>>>>>>>> the generation of the startup.properties in the karaf
>>>>>>>>> plugin.
>>>>>>>>> So what do you think?
>>>>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> FuseSource, Integration everywhere
>>>>> http://fusesource.com

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Talend - http://www.talend.com

View raw message