Hi David, I take a quick look on apache karaf (minimal and full) assemblies generated with the new MOJOs.
I see the following issues: - no information files are presents in the assemblies: README, NOTICE, LICENSE, RELEASE-NOTES - no bin folder containing the startup scripts - I think that the apache-karaf-full should be named apache-karaf, I'm afraid to loose the users the the full suffix. - could you explain the function of all features files in system repo ? system$ find . -name "*.xml" ./org/apache/karaf/assemblies/features/enterprise/3.0.0-SNAPSHOT/enterprise-3.0.0-SNAPSHOT-features.xml ./org/apache/karaf/assemblies/features/standard/3.0.0-SNAPSHOT/standard-3.0.0-SNAPSHOT-features.xml ./org/apache/karaf/assemblies/features/karaf-full/3.0.0-SNAPSHOT/karaf-full-3.0.0-SNAPSHOT-features.xml ./org/apache/karaf/assemblies/features/karaf-framework/3.0.0-SNAPSHOT/karaf-framework-3.0.0-SNAPSHOT-features.xml So in the current state, the new assemblies can not replace the "old" one. The bin folder is a must have, also the README, NOTICE, etc. To summarize, here's my -1 to remove the "old" assembly for now. Regards JB On Mon 11/04/11 07:42, "David Jencks" [email protected] wrote: > I also added a simple karaf-feature-archetype. > > david jencks > > On Apr 10, 2011, at 2:38 PM, David Jencks 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-di > stribution.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 >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >
