It makes sense to me. Let me create Jira and work on an improvement about that.
Thanks for the proposal ! Regards JB On 27/01/2020 08:17, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > Yep, also means karaf.main must not depend on these ones but technically it > sounds very feasible and saner in terms of architecture (launcher > responsability vs container like one). > > Le lun. 27 janv. 2020 à 08:14, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> a > écrit : > >> Hi Romain, >> >> So, basically, your proposal is to remove jdk9plus and "force" use of >> spec bundles, right ? >> >> It makes sense to me, but it means that any spec has to be a bundle and >> started in early stage of the boot process. >> If it's possible, it makes sense. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On 27/01/2020 08:11, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Playing with the r7 branch i tried to build an osgi-cdi distro but >> stumbled >>> upon the fact jdk9plus folder breaks resolution chain quite easily when >>> switching of jdk. >>> >>> Long story short, having annotation, activation (and potentially jaxb >> but i >>> didnt need this one ;)) does not enable to have them as bundle in the >> same >>> version - so to do dynamic updates too ;) - and they miss osgi.contract >>> entry config. >>> >>> I wonder if there is any rational to have them at all, sounds like karaf >>> can boot without them and just move to bundles all the logic potentially >>> needing them so no need to patch the classpath for java >= 9 IMHO. >>> >>> Did I miss anything? >>> Is it something to plan to clean up for karaf 4.3.0? >>> >> >> -- >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> jbono...@apache.org >> http://blog.nanthrax.net >> Talend - http://www.talend.com >> > -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
