As already stated @PaxExam-503 I'm fine with it too. Should also speed up the Karaf build a bit again :-)
Kind regards, Andreas On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]>wrote: > Hey guys, > > I'm +1 for moving the pax-exam-karaf code base back closer to the pax-exam > code base. > > regards, Achim > > > 2013/3/12 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > > > Hi Harald, > > > > Having Karaf container in Pax Exam directly looks better to me. > > > > It's easier to bootstrap different Karaf distribution than embedding new > > Pax Exam version (with dependencies like Runner) in karaf-pax-exam. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > On 03/11/2013 09:01 PM, Harald Wellmann wrote: > > > >> All@Karaf, > >> > >> at OPS4J, there is an ongoing discussion about Karaf support in Pax > >> Exam, and in my role of Pax Exam Project Lead, I would like to bring up > >> this subject to the Karaf team, hoping to set up a roadmap for making > >> Karaf work with Pax Exam 3.x. > >> > >> Some background: > >> > >> - The Karaf Test Container, originally started by Andreas Pieber as a > >> separate project, is now part of the Karaf code base. > >> > >> - On Karaf trunk, this container is based on Pax Exam 2.6.0. > >> > >> - The container and existing tests use some Pax Exam APIs that were > >> deprecated in Pax Exam 2.4.0 and have been removed in Pax Exam 3.0.0, > >> along with the deprecrated Pax Runner Test Container. > >> > >> - For this reason, people using Pax Exam to test Karaf-based > >> applications can't simply upgrade to Pax Exam 3.0.0. (Unfortunately, > >> nobody noticed or complained about that in the pre-3.0.0 release phase > >> of Pax Exam.) > >> > >> - New Pax Exam options for provisioning Karaf features have been > >> contributed by Christoph Läubrich to Pax Exam master (targeting 3.1.0 or > >> later), currently not backed by any integration tests. > >> > >> Summing up the discussion [1] at OPS4J so far, we would like to achieve > >> the following goals: > >> > >> - Tests based on the Karaf Exam Container (including but not limited to > >> integration tests of the Karaf project) can be upgraded to Pax Exam 3.x > >> with little or no code changes. > >> > >> - If any future refactorings either in Exam or in Karaf break the Karaf > >> Exam container, there is a bunch of failing regression tests in at least > >> one of the two projects. > >> > >> - The Karaf Exam Container and all Karaf-specific Exam options are > >> centralized either in Apache Karaf or in OPS4J Pax Exam, to avoid > >> tangled responsibilities between two communities. > >> > >> Those of you who've watched the progress of Pax Exam towards 3.0.0 will > >> know that Pax Exam now offers a whole lot of test containers for > >> third-party runtimes like GlassFish, JBoss AS, Tomcat etc., backed by a > >> fairly extensive regression test matrix. So a Karaf test container would > >> be just another member of the family. > >> > >> On the other hand, it might make sense to move the recent Karaf-related > >> additions from Pax Exam to the Karaf project. > >> > >> To be sure, nobody at OPS4J wants to rip out a chunk of the Karaf > >> codebase just to make Pax Exam bigger ;-) > >> > >> The basic question is, what is the best way to make things work smoothly > >> for all Karaf-cum-Exam users - I'm offering my support, and I'm open to > >> all options. > >> > >> So much for now - I'm looking forward to hearing your opinions. > >> > >> [1] http://team.ops4j.org/browse/**PAXEXAM-503< > http://team.ops4j.org/browse/PAXEXAM-503> > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Harald > >> > >> > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > [email protected] > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > > > -- > > Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC > OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & > Project Lead > OPS4J Pax for Vaadin <http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home> > Commiter & Project Lead > blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> >
