I'm with Andreas here, another docuemtation besides the wiki and scalate just turns into more problems, not necessarily but last time the scalate documentation did :)
so +1 for integrating this special maven-plugin documentation into the standard documentation, maybe some of our scalate experts can do that :) Additionally we need some migration documentation for the people who already do the assembly stuff. regards, Achim 2011/4/11 Andreas Pieber <[email protected]>: > I expect that we can publish it similar to our scalate site, though > I'm not sure if we really want to introduce another technology. While > I see the reason that mvn site is especially useful for documenting > mvn plugins I'm not sure if we want to include another way of > documenting AND another problem during release. Maybe we can include > the site output into the scalate output? > > Kind regards, > Andreas > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 PM, David Jencks <[email protected]> wrote: >> I didn't see where a smx assembly was being built so I spent a few minutes >> on plugin documentation. I think running mvn site in >> tooling/karaf-maven-plugin produces a reasonably informative result. >> >> Are we publishing maven generated sites anywhere? I'm not always sure about >> regular projects' maven sites but the generated plugin documentation is >> usually pretty useful and I think that people expect to find it. >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >> On Apr 9, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Achim Nierbeck wrote: >> >>> my comments in-line :) >>> >>> >>>> I think I left out a step :-) and I'm not sure how people are currently >>>> packaging the extra files needed for a custom server. >>> >>> the way I used to do it was to configure a maven project for assembly >>> and I configured all my extra bundles as dependency in this >>> project, using the assembly plug-in for maven. First step was to extract >>> the standard distro of Karaf, add some extra bundles >>> add some extra config files, changed some config files skipped some >>> config files of the original assembly. >>> >>>> I'm thinking that you would set up a kar project with all the extra files, >>>> configuration, etc as well as listing or including the bundles, so you can >>>> install e.g. servicemix on any karaf instance as a kar, and then also set >>>> up a karaf-assembly project that produces a custom distribution based on >>>> that kar as well as everything else you want in the server. >>> >>> This is a nice idea, and this way I probably don't need to edit the >>> startup.properties anymore. I kind of like that. >>> As I already stated we need some very good documentation to get our >>> users into this boat :) >>> >>>> The framework and full kars I added to assemblies/features combined with >>>> the new assemblies are one example of this technique, but maybe I should >>>> try it out on e.g. servicemix also as an example. Is it clear where the >>>> servicemix assembly is? >>> >>> For this you have to ask JB, he did the last release for ServiceMix. >>> >>>> thanks >>>> david jencks >>>> >>>> On Apr 9, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi David, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I assume you are talking about the instructions for custom distributions >>>>>> here: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://karaf.apache.org/manual/2.2.0/developers-guide/custom-distribution.html >>>>>> >>>>> yes, exactly >>>>> >>>>>> The process described here is hideously complex compared to what I'm >>>>>> proposing. To keep it available we need to keep the >>>>>> add-features-to-repo mojo. If, after comparing equivalent old and new >>>>>> style karaf assembly projects, someone wants to keep it, fine. >>>>> well, it might be complex but most persons I know a very aware of how to >>>>> use the assembly plugin of maven on building a >>>>> nice little distribution :) >>>>> >>>>>> Conceptually the main difference I see between old and new styles is >>>>>> that the old style relies on unpacking an existing distro whereas the >>>>>> new style currently asks you to copy the list of features and kars that >>>>>> were assembled into the existing distro. I think I can set up an "uber >>>>>> feature" for each distro so there's only one feature going in, so in >>>>>> either style there would be exactly one artifact involved, but it might >>>>>> be a good idea to add an "unpack existing distro" mojo so the >>>>>> karaf-assembly packaging can also unpack something for you. In this >>>>>> case I think the new style would be equivalent to the old style except >>>>>> you'd list the features to add as maven dependencies instead of >>>>>> configuring them in the k-m-p plugin configuration, and you' leave out >>>>>> 99% of the configuration. >>>>>> >>>>>> Have you tried setting up a project to do a new-style assembly? >>>>> No I didn't yet, but will give it a try. I just realized this big change. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> regards, Achim >>>>> >>>>>> thanks >>>>>> david jencks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 9, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all my comments in-line >>>>>>> >>>>>>> regards, Achim >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Karaf is complete atomic and standalone OSGi container. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It should run by itself (and it's still the case). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> full ack, for just using camel you don't need anything else. This just >>>>>>> as a quick description on how I am using Karaf very often. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think it's more logic for the projects to be build on top. Anyway, >>>>>>>> I'm not against this new change as it could get life easy in the >>>>>>>> project. >>>>>>>> David, did you launch a thread in the past on this mailing list, or >>>>>>>> updated a wiki page describing this new philosophy ? Sorry if the >>>>>>>> question is stupid, maybe I missed some messages, but I don't remember >>>>>>>> lot of discussion on these changes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I did see some mail-threads touching parts of this, but somehow I was >>>>>>> missing the big picture beforehand. >>>>>>> IMHO for me this move was quite fast and a better discussion could have >>>>>>> been helpful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me make some try to have a better understanding. Anyway, I didn't >>>>>>>> see any change on the manual around the "Karaf Custom Distribution" >>>>>>>> section. It should be introduce and described in the manual. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> We surely need some very good documentation on this move, because we >>>>>>> already have a description for how to build a custom distributions and >>>>>>> people are already using it to make their own custom distribution. I >>>>>>> used to do this at my former company >>>>>>> and I'm sure the guys doing it now will get kind of upset if they have >>>>>>> to change a lot on how to make a custom distribution. >>>>>>> Just my 2 cent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will do that regarding my tests on ServiceMix. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 04/08/2011 09:15 PM, David Jencks wrote: >>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest that it would be more appropriate for other >>>>>>>>> projects such as servicemix to have one or more karaf-assembly >>>>>>>>> packaging projects similar to the apache-karaf-framework or >>>>>>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies but including exactly the content >>>>>>>>> wanted, rather than starting with a distributed karaf server and >>>>>>>>> modifying it. That was more or less the point of introcuding the >>>>>>>>> karaf-assembly packaging. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is a pretty dramatic change in philosophy of what karaf is and >>>>>>>>> how to use it, but I think it is easier to use and a lot more >>>>>>>>> flexible. I think of karaf more as a way to construct servers rather >>>>>>>>> than as a particular set of content in a server. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>>>> david jencks >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Before, I will check the impact on some other projects, especially >>>>>>>>>> around the groupId/artifactId used. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We made a mistake by changing the groupId/artifactId of features, I >>>>>>>>>> don't wanna to have the same issue with the distribution assemblies. >>>>>>>>>> Projects like ServiceMix use the Karaf distribution in their own >>>>>>>>>> assembly. At least, we need to document the new Mojo, the new >>>>>>>>>> distro, etc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm gonna make some tests with ServiceMix and I will keep you posted. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 04/08/2011 07:45 PM, David Jencks wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest that we remove the old assemblies/apache-karaf >>>>>>>>>>> and use instead the assemblies/apache-karaf-minimal and >>>>>>>>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies constructed using the new mojos. I >>>>>>>>>>> think we can also remove a lot of mojos from the karaf-maven-plugin. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> With the exception of some configuration files, legal files, the >>>>>>>>>>> demo files, and the inclusion of o.a.k.shell.ssh in the old minimal >>>>>>>>>>> assembly by error, the contents of the corresponding new and old >>>>>>>>>>> assemblies are the same. A few more bundles start in the newer >>>>>>>>>>> servers but I think these are errors similar to the inclusion of >>>>>>>>>>> ssh in the minimal assemblies. It would be great if someone more >>>>>>>>>>> familiar with karaf history than I would investigate the >>>>>>>>>>> differences and advise about what to do. Basically I assume that >>>>>>>>>>> all the bundles in system should be started, so the choices are to >>>>>>>>>>> remove the extra bundles from system or to decide that indeed their >>>>>>>>>>> presence is correct. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what to do with the demos. It's easy enough to write >>>>>>>>>>> a kar file that will unpack the demo content so it will look just >>>>>>>>>>> as it does today, but what's there strikes me as sort of horrible. >>>>>>>>>>> I don't really expect a server image to include maven projects that >>>>>>>>>>> I can build to add functionality. I think that it would be a lot >>>>>>>>>>> more appropriate to have a customization maven archetype that will >>>>>>>>>>> generate a full-featured customization project, and one or two demo >>>>>>>>>>> features that can install prebuilt demo applications. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking about how best to install legal files into assemblies >>>>>>>>>>> and hope to have a suggestion in the next few days. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The current apache-karaf builds some kind of source distribution. >>>>>>>>>>> I haven't looked into exactly what it is but suggest that the >>>>>>>>>>> source distros produced by the apache release profile are >>>>>>>>>>> sufficient. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Related to this suggestion I think it would be great if some of the >>>>>>>>>>> other projects that use karaf such as servicemix, activemq, >>>>>>>>>>> directory (?) tried out the new packagings to build custom server >>>>>>>>>>> assemblies. I will try to write up some documentation and maven >>>>>>>>>>> archetypes for this in the next few days. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>>>>>> david jencks >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >
