Andy, I am happy with that plan for OSGi. As for the 4.2.0 RC1:
[x] +1 Approve the release Aaron On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 11:20, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Aaron, > > > With runnable jars, docker, kubernetes, etc, I have > > found deployment models that are much easier to manage than OSGi > > runtimes. All of which is to say: perhaps the Jena project should > > consider whether OSGi should be supported in the future. > > Agreed. I can't recall when it was last mentioned on users@ and multiple > applications in the same JVM are not in fashion. I'd guess these systems > are unlikely to upgrade very frequently either. > > We've said previously that OSGi was not one the main parts of Jena. > > How about: > > 1/ Remove the OSGi convenience binaries, that is - apache-jena-osgi > jena-osgi and jena-osgi-features so that don't go to maven repo1. > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachejena-1044/org/apache/jena/ > > TIL: The Nexus repo let's us delete subtrees. > > 2/ Put in the announcement to users@ that there is no OSGi binaries in > this release due to late-emerging problems. > > 3/ Ask for any users to let us knowif they use the OSGi packaging. > > > In other words, leave the release source artifact (THE release) alone. > > > If necessary, someone can build from that, with fixes, and still be > using an official Jena release. > > Absent anyone offering to help, we retire OSGi. > > If there is sufficient demand, do 4.2.1 with fixed OSGi. > > If you're happy to vote for the release with that plan - and so is > Bruno, who has voted - I will then test the proposed, revised maven tree > from an independent project. > > This delays doing another build prior to 4.3.0 until we know whether it > is needed - whether OSGi (and know it's been confirmed as working) or > some other thing that emerges. > > Andy > > On 14/09/2021 14:38, Aaron Coburn wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > There are a few things that make OSGi provisioning difficult. > Specifically, > > the jena-osgi artifact (in its current form in 4.2.0-RC-1 and on the main > > branch) includes the following Import-Package declarations: > > > > com.apicatalog.jsonld, > > com.apicatalog.jsonld.api, > > com.apicatalog.jsonld.document, > > com.apicatalog.rdf, > > com.apicatalog.rdf.spi, > > jakarta.json;version="[2.0,3)" > > > > This requires the titanium and jakarta dependencies to be present. Those > > dependencies are not present in Jena's features.xml configuration, > though a > > user could add those bundles separately. Unfortunately, the Titanium > > dependencies are not OSGi bundles, so they cannot be added directly. In > > Apache Karaf, there is a mechanism by which one can "wrap" a non-OSGi > > bundle, but this does not work with Titanium. I am not entirely sure why > it > > doesn't work, but I suspect that it is an upstream issue that should be > > sorted out with the titanium project (I will pursue that separately). > There > > is no particular difficulty installing the jakarta.json bundle, but that > is > > only needed when Titanium is present. By setting those dependencies as > > optional (as is done in that PR), a user who does not use those features > > will not need to have those dependencies present. And given that Titanium > > doesn't appear to work in OSGi, an OSGi user will likely not be using > > Titanium. > > > > I will add, though, that I have more or less given up on working with > OSGi > > -- it presents a lot of challenges that can be hard to sort out (as you > can > > see based on this thread). Plus, in my opinion, many of the advantages of > > OSGi are relevant only in servers where multiple applications exist in a > > shared JVM runtime. With runnable jars, docker, kubernetes, etc, I have > > found deployment models that are much easier to manage than OSGi > runtimes. > > All of which is to say: perhaps the Jena project should consider whether > > OSGi should be supported in the future. > > > > -Aaron > > > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 05:47, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 14/09/2021 01:18, Aaron Coburn wrote: > >> ... > >>> I did find that the OSGi deployment failed on the new Titanium > >>> dependencies. I have submitted a PR that fixes this: > >>> https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/1072 > >> > >> Hi Aaron, > >> > >> Not being an OSGi user, I have some simple questions: > >> > >> What's the issue here? (what actually goes wrong - the PR says > >> installing Jena in an OSGi runtime is difficult - does that mean > >> impossible?) > >> > >> Is it with Titanium or the jakarta dependencies? > >> > >> If it's Titanium, is there something to ask for upstream? > >> > >> Andy > >> > > >
