karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Baptiste Onofré ...@nanthrax.net>
Subject Re: bnd files in Decanter Project
Date Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:53:52 GMT
Hi David,

For now, we are talking on the dev side of Karaf: from an user 
perspective, it doesn't change anything (an user doesn't have to know 
bnd to use Karaf).

Anyway, projects using Karaf can still use the configuration they want: 
maven-bundle-plugin without bnd files, bndtools, or whatever.

Regards
JB

On 02/12/2016 12:50 PM, David Daniel wrote:
> I have had the same experience as Milen and Christian but I think I come to
> a different conclusion.  I originally came to karaf because of the easy
> entrance into OSGI and we have a Maven build process that I could not move
> from.  I think many other people come to karaf for those same reasons.
> Here is a conversation I had the other day where karaf was primarily being
> used for its build process and its tight integration of maven with
> features
> https://groups.google.com/a/saiku.meteorite.bi/forum/#!topic/dev/4uiWj1g2EU0
> I think even bnd is getting away from having to put things inside of the
> bnd file and making sure you can configure osgi in other ways (Example
> would be making classes ending in impl private and using annotations to
> determine exports and imports through references.  Even those elements you
> discussed previously such as runtime properties and system packages are
> more for the bndrun files so that bndtools can package and launch
> appropriately.  I generally keep them out of the bnd file and let maven
> handle those elements for my project.  If you want to maintain a bndrun
> file to test and use with bndtools that is different than requireing a bnd
> file.  My general feeling is that almost nothing will need to go into the
> .bnd file soon (See this conversation
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bndtools-users/yV_B5B1cU3k) so
> karaf should not require users to understand what it is.  I think it will
> be optional soon enough so it is better not to require it now.  On the
> other hand if developers like bnd tools then let them include an optional
> bndrun file that they are responsible for maintaining.  I think with java 9
> alot of people will come to OSGI for the tooling and it will be important
> to ease them into the OSGI build process as simply as possible.
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Christian Schneider <
> chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12.02.2016 11:46, Milen Dyankov wrote:
>>
>>> For the record (in case you find some public evidence of me arguing the
>>> opposite) some time ago I was totally against using bnd.bnd files. After
>>> being kind of forced to do it for a while, I realized it doesn't really
>>> make any difference in the effort that it takes to maintain those and at
>>> the same time provides clearer separation of concerns. So I changed my
>>> mind
>>> :) !
>>>
>> Interestingly I have the same experience. I first hit bnd.bnd files in
>> some pax projects and thought they were a strange way to configure the OSGi
>> setup. So at this time I was also rather against it. The more I worked on
>> it in pax and also while I did some experiments in bndtools the more I
>> liked the
>> style of bnd files. At some point then I migrated the Aries JPA project to
>> it and I really like the result.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christian Schneider
>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>
>> Open Source Architect
>> http://www.talend.com
>>
>>
>

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Mime
View raw message