Ok this is becoming a long thread here so I'll try to be brief. I'm open the concept of changing assemblies for 3.0, but we need to address all of the issues Jean-Baptiste outlined above and we need to properly document it all. We also need to see what impact this change will have on SMX, as well as other projects (they will need plenty of heads up time to adjust for this). If we see issues for our downstream users then we may want to start a Karaf 2.3 branch so that they may continue to get new features back ported from 3.0, while preparing for the larger change in the 3.0 series.
As to the documentation itself, it needs to be consistent with the rest of our printed manual, and therefore it should be located with our scalate docs (it should integrated such that it does not require any additional steps to be produced during releases). I don't want to force users to search multiple locations for information. I do believe that a full write up explaining how to go from Karaf 2.2.0 style custom distributions to this new style will need to be posted some where on the site as well, well in advance of a 3.0 release. As a major change it needs to be made as painless as possible for all to switch philosophies (if the community decides it wants to go this direction of course). Cheers, Jamie On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]> wrote: > -1 I'm with JB here, I didn't realize that those "half" empty jars are > supposed to be the replacements > > 2011/4/11 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>: >> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >
