Great. Thanks for the clarification.
Glyn
On 16 Jun 2009, at 09:39, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
The deployer is unrelated to so called "features" in karaf.
The karaf deployer consists in filemonitor / fileinstall + a set of
custom transformers.
The transformer interface is defined in the filemonitor:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/trunk/karaf/deployer/filemonitor/src/main/java/org/apache/felix/karaf/deployer/filemonitor/DeploymentListener.java
It's role is solely to transform something dropped into one of the
monitored folder into an OSGi bundle. This is used to deploy war
files (through pax-web), spring xml config files, etc...
As I said, it's really unrelated to "application" deployment handled
using features. Actually, there is also a feature deployer that can
handle a feature descriptor copied into the deploy folder and will
install the listed features, but again, this is done through an
implementation of the above interface registered in the OSGi registry,
so not tied to the deployer itself.
I do agree this would be a bad idea to put the "features" support into
the fileinstall, but that's not what I was talking about here.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:08, Glyn Normington<[email protected]> wrote:
I'm a little concerned about positioning deployer function below file
install.
There are clearly many single bundle application scenarios where
this makes
a lot of sense. But if you consider applications consisting of
multiple
bundles where the deployer needs to perform certain operations on
the whole
set of bundles, things get a bit tricky since the result of that
install
operation is presumably limited to be a single Bundle.
Also isn't it likely that the Karaf deployer will evolve at a
faster rate
than the Felix OSGi framework and possibly even spawn multiple
variants?
So should the Karaf deployer should be integrated tightly in to
file install
or enabled to plug in via an extension mechanism so that it can
logically
sit on top of file install and perhaps more easily cope with
multiple bundle
operations and evolve faster?
Glyn
On 15 Jun 2009, at 15:31, Richard S. Hall wrote:
I think this sounds reasonable as long as it keeps the basic simple
functionality in tact by default and the implementation remains
simple
overall, since that was the original goal, as mentioned by Sahoo and
Filippo.
It doesn't sound like the added features add too much complexity
and could
also be made optional where appropriate. So, that sounds good.
The original idea for FELIX-922 (supporting different types of
files) was
to create something really lightweight, such as a simple handler
service
interface which the core could retrieve from the service registry
and other
bundles could implement. It sounds like this is what has been
done, so that
seems good too.
Also as mentioned, merging might be more difficult, since the code
bases
have changed, but merging features sounds possible.
I had also wondered about supporting start levels. My original
thought
there was to create numbered subdirectories that correspond to the
start
level for the contained bundles; however, that might be
problematic with
exploded bundle support...something to think about.
-> richard
On 6/15/09 4:45 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I'd like to start discussing how we can merge karaf deployer and
felix
fileinstall.
Note that karaf deployer is originally based on the same code
base but
has since evolved.
Here are a list of the main features we've added to the karaf
deployer
over time:
* use the preference service (if available) to store the
status of
the deployer
thus the last update time for each tracked object is stored
and
at restart the deployer
is able to detect changed files
* ability to handle exploded bundles
* ability to transform artifacts on the fly (wars, spring config
files, blueprint config files, etc...) through OSGi services
this issue has been raised in FELIX-922
I know some of you wants to keep file install minimalistic, so
I'd be
fine keeping both versions around if that's the outcome of the
discussion, but I think we need to have this discussion at some
point.
Note that the karaf deployer is only 35k whereas fileinstall is
32k
... so I guess we need to define what minimalistic / lightweight /
(whatever adjective you want) is ...
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
