+1
For auto starting features by default
Christian
Am 19.04.2011 09:05, schrieb Achim Nierbeck:
hm,
I only have one open question, the other "standard" features like war
and webconsole, when I install those features the bundles stay in
installed state, and some
of those bundles are supposed to be system bundles, e.g. the web
console bundle. I kind of miss the standard behaviour of installing a
feature and all bundles are up and running. How do we get around that?
And actually the current behavior of installing a feature and those
features are right available is one of the best things about the
features. I'd rather like to see it the other way round.
Default behavior should be the same as before, if a feature is
installed all bundles are started right away, if I don't want it that
way I need to add a special flag like --nostart or something.
regards, Achim
2011/4/19 David Jencks<[email protected]>:
In r1094800 I adopted these ideas. The biggest change to review is adding a
"forceStart" option to the FeaturesService options. This is so we can assure
that all bundles in boot features get started. I thought I remembered a -s
features:install option that would start all the bundles, but it doesn't seem to be there
today. If no one objects to this enum option I think we should add the command option.
In addition I made a new feature called "standard" in the standard features
which contains the stuff from framework that can easily be installed as a boot feature.
I also made the full kar's feature installed as a boot feature.
The servers (old and new) seem to start OK for me and have the expected
content. Please check for problems.
thanks
david jencks
On Apr 18, 2011, at 12:15 AM, David Jencks wrote:
I think there's a problem with boot features, and I think we don't see it with
the old style assemblies because the bundles are in fact all listed in the
startup.properties as well as as boot features.
There are 3 bundles in other parts of the startup.properties that depend on
Apache Karaf :: Management (3.0.0.SNAPSHOT):
[ 14] [Installed ] [ ] [ 30] Apache Karaf :: Diagnostic ::
Management (3.0.0.SNAPSHOT)
[ 16] [Installed ] [ ] [ 30] Apache Karaf :: Features ::
Management (3.0.0.SNAPSHOT)
[ 19] [Installed ] [ ] [ 30] Apache Karaf :: Admin :: Management
(3.0.0.SNAPSHOT)
Even if I put the feature core bundle at start level 25 it installs the boot
feature asynchronously so the management bundle isn't installed by the time
these 3 bundles need it.
I'm not 100% sure but I think this problem still occurs if I make the feature
service install the boot features synchronously. I'm surprised but can't debug
through it tonight.
One possible fix might be to move more of this into boot features so there are
no dependencies from startup.properties-started-bundles on boot feature
bundles. This is a pretty big change to the structure of the minimal server.
Also the boot features don't appear to be started by default unless I put
start='true' into each bundle.
Any suggestions?
thanks
david jencks
On Apr 17, 2011, at 12:23 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Hi Guillaume,
I think you are suggesting:
1. combine local-repo and system under a suitable name such as system or
repository. I'll use system for now.
2. have as little as possible in startup.properties. For instance the
startup.properties for minimal and full servers should be the same
3. everything else in the basic minimal and full servers should be started
through bootFeatures. We want to ensure that all the required bundles are in
the (single) repo.
4. generally to create a custom server you'll add (or maybe also remove) more
bootFeatures and make sure the bundles are installed into the repo.
This seems entirely reasonable to me. The only quibble I can think of at the
moment is that if everything is in startup.properties you can look at one file
and see everything that will be started in one place.
I'm not sure how it works right now, but with this approach I think we'll want
to make sure that when the features service starts it installs all the boot
feature bundles immediately so the framework can use the start level specified
in the features and the order listed in bootFeatures won't matter.
One situation this approach won't work for is if you need some bundles started
before the feature service itself. For instance if you want jaxb 2.2 used
everywhere you'd need to install the jaxb 2.2 system with a lower start level
than the feature service. So some custom servers may need to alter the
startup.properties compared to the minimal server. While in this case I expect
the jaxb 2.2 feature I'll need will be in its own feature repo so it can be
handled by just listing it as a compile scope dependency, so its bundles will
get added to startup.properties, this kind of situation indicates to me that
startupFeatures can still be useful.
I'll see if I run into any problems switching the new-style assemblies to this
approach.
thanks!
david jencks
On Apr 17, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Note that I've recently enhanced the startup mecahnism to not *always*
try to install the bundles listed in the startup.properties.
Previously, they were always reinstalled at startup time.
First, I don't really see the need for local-repo and system. I
think we should just merge them.
There's really no need for bootFeatures + startupFeatures. I think we
should only have one mechanism. The original idea was that the core
bundles are started with the startup.properties and everthing else
installed using features, mostly through bootFeatures. Now that we
have a better maven plugin, the plugin is able to do both, but this is
a bit confusing. Note that there is some differences though:
* bundles listed startup.properties have to be in the system repo as
the real mvn url handlers can't be used
* manually editing the statup.properties is much more tedious than
changing the bootFeatures imho
* you can't put bundles using wrap url handler in the startup.properties
The third point is specially problematic I think. One possible use
case that isn't really addressed yet is the ability to create a
configuration where some features depend on url handlers that are
provisioned by other features. Or, said another way, a feature can
only be *installed* if a dependent feature is *started*. I think
moving things back in the startup.properties will make such
dependencies even harder to manage.
I think I would have rathe gone the opposite direction and remove as
much as possible from the startup.properties to use the bootfeatures
instead, but it may be just me.
Just to understand the goal, what kind of benefit do you see by
listing all bundles in the startup.properties ? I suppose we could
get rid of the features service at runtime then, but apart from that,
I'm not sure to see.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 09:41, David Jencks<[email protected]> wrote:
Well, I think it may promote confusion, but there are now 3 options for
features in features repositories of maven runtime scope:
startupFeatures. The bundles in these features will get installed into system
and listed in startup.properties
bootFeatures: The bundles in these features will get installed into local-repo
and the feature names added to bootFeatures in the features cfg file
installedFeatures: The bundles in these features will get installed into
local-repo.
For instance,
<configuration>
<startupFeatures>
<feature>ssh</feature>
<feature>config</feature>
<feature>management</feature>
</startupFeatures>
</configuration>
Note that except for startupFeatures the bundles are installed into local-repo.
I think system should only have bundles started from startup.properties in it.
thoughts?
thanks
david jencks
On Apr 16, 2011, at 12:50 PM, Johan Edstrom wrote:
For me it'd be the same logic as not "starting" everything from tomcats
endorsed lib and
just deploying WAR file, perhaps a little convoluted comparison, but the
features additions, adding
things and keeping "application" vs. features does make it simpler to manage as
your features and deployments grow.
On Apr 16, 2011, at 1:05 PM, David Jencks wrote:
If the same bundles all get started when you start the server, what is the difference? I
think you've "designed" the server you want by including the bundles and
indicating that you want them started at server startup. How is it different whether the
bundles are started from startup.properties or the feature service looking at boot
features?
thanks
david jencks
On Apr 16, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Johan Edstrom wrote:
I really think that the startup.properties is for infrastructure, bluperint etc.
the startup features allows you do "design" your own distro.
On Apr 16, 2011, at 12:42 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Hi JB,
Thanks for the explanation, I think I've looked at things from only the
karaf-assembly point of view too long to see anything else :-) The way
karaf-assembly works now, all the bundles in system will be listed in
startup.properties and will start automatically.
I think you are saying:
-- if you include a feature in the boot feature list, you should make sure all
the bundles needed are in the server already.
and, looking more closely at the add-features-to-repo mojo I see there's
a<features> configuration element that lets you specify features to install
the bundles for.
I'm going to add that capability to the karaf-assembly packaging.
There's another difference of style to resolve. I've set up the karaf-assembly packaging so that
whenever it installs a featue, it adds the feature's bundles to startup.properties at the
appropriate start level. For "boot" features this means that you don't need to list them
in the features service configuration "boot features" since they will be started via the
startup.properties. On the other hand you can't uninstall this feature so easily. Is this an
important difference? Do I need to make a way to install a feature's bundles but not add the
bundles to startup.properties?
many thanks
david jencks
On Apr 16, 2011, at 12:12 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi David,
I'm not sure to follow you. bootFeatures property defines which features are
started at Karaf bootstrap time. It allows user to start a fresh Karaf instance
with a set of Karaf features loaded and installed.
For instance, in ServiceMix, we have:
- nmr feature as boot feature and we ship all required jar (using
features-add-to-repo goal) in the system OBR
- camel-nmr, cxf-nmr, etc are part of the NMR features but not in the boot
features set. As we consider this kind of features as optional, we don't ship
the features jar in the system OBR
Regards
JB
On 04/16/2011 08:32 AM, David Jencks wrote:
I am wondering why we have boot features in trunk. In particular I think there
is an inconsistency around the management feature which is in the minimal boot
feature list and whose jars are in the minimal server assembly. On the other
hand the ssh full boot feature doesn't have all its jars in the full server.
If a boot feature doesn't already have all its jars in the server, won't this
require internet access on initial startup?
If all the jars for a boot feature are already installed in the server, why
call it a boot feature, why not just start it with the rest of the jars? For
this question I may be biased by looking at the packaging based assemblies
where the startup.properties is constructed from the features that are
installed into the server, so it is at least as east to configure the assembly
to just include the jars as to configure a boot feature.
Am I missing something?
thanks
david jencks
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
Connect at CamelOne May 24-26
The Open Source Integration Conference
http://camelone.com/
--
Christian Schneider
CXF and Camel Architect
SOPERA - The Application Integration Division of Talend
http://www.talend.com
