Hi, thank you for your. Is there any change to get the c'n'p error (caused by jline) fixed for 4.2.9?
Best regards, Markus Grzegorz Grzybek <gr.grzy...@gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 19. März 2020, 06:36: > Hello > > I can say only about Karaf 4.3.0. I'm indeed working on Pax Web 8 (I'm > finally at the stage where I can actually push some (almost) atomic > changes. Initially it was just 100+ files changed at once). Current state > can be checked in master-improvements branch > <https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.web/commits/master-improvements>. > > I found just too many places in Pax Web 7 that were just too much against > R6 specification and I needed ... more changes than I planned. Even if I've > not reviewed yet pax-web-extender-war, I've rebuilt the foundation so > seriously with both WAR and Whiteboard extenders in mind that it should be > easier to progress now. > > The most important change in Pax Web 8 now is that there's clear > distinction between "OSGi Context Model" and "Servlet Context Model". Here > are some requirements that stem directly from specification and I've > already implemented them: > > - "Servlet Context Model" is in 1:1 relation with actual servlet context > (or single, unique "context path" like "/c1") > - "OSGi Context Model" is in 1:1 relation with HttpContext (from Http > Service spec) or ServletContextHelper (from Whiteboard Service spec). > Such > "OSGi context" "points to" single "Servlet Context" > - *but* there may be many "OSGi Context Models" pointing to single > "Servlet Context Model" > - *also*, single Whiteboard-registered servlet may be associated with > many "OSGi Context Models" > > The implications are sometimes amazing: > > - a servlet may be registered to many "OSGi Context Models", which point > to different "Servlet Context Models" - this means servlet /s may be > available under /c1/s and /c2/s > - a servlet may be registered to many "OSGi Context Models", which point > to *the same* "Servlet Context Models" - this means servlet /s may be > available under /c/s but handleSecurity() is taken from "OSGi Context > Model" with highest ranking - Pax Web 7 didn't do that at all > - a filter may be mapped to /* and be associated with many "OSGi Context > Models", but should be added to filter chain ONLY if the chain ends > with a > servlet associated with matching "OSGi Context Model" > - a servlet associated wtih "OSGi Context Model" point to, say, /c1 > "Servlet Context" is available at, say, /c1/s. But when service > registration properties for the associated ServletContextHelper (1:1 > with > "OSGi Context Model") change, servlet has to "switch" from /c1/s to, > say, > /c2/s (or even /s when given "OSGi Context Model" starts being > associated > with the default "Servlet Context Model" > > So, you see (I hope) that Pax Web 8 is not going to be an easy release ;) > But I really try hard now... > > regards > Grzegorz Grzybek > > czw., 19 mar 2020 o 05:35 Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> > napisał(a): > > > Hi everyone, > > > > First of all, I’m sorry for the ones who are on Slack, I have some > > connection issues since yesterday morning. It should be fixed by the end > of > > today max. > > > > Anyway, I would like to move forward about the releases. > > > > For this week, I would like to submit to vote: > > > > - Decanter 2.3.0: it’s a major (very major ;)) release bringing new > > features (new alerting service with much better condition, time series, > > Prometheus appender, new collectors, …), updates (Elasticsearch 7 > support, > > …) and fixes. I’m rebasing and polishing branches, I hope to submit > > Decanter release to vote during the week end. > > - Karaf 4.2.9, even if it doesn’t contain as much as 4.2.8, I would like > > to submit this release to vote as it contains the fix about HTTPs access > to > > Maven Central. As for Decanter, I plan the start the vote during the week > > end or early next week. > > - Karaf 4.3.0. We released 4.3.0.RC1 some weeks ago. Unfortunately we > > didn’t get lot of feedback. So, even if Pax Web is not fully ready for > OSGi > > R7 (thanks again to Greg for working hard on this), I propose to move > > forward on 4.3.0 "as it is". Thoughts ? > > > > Regards > > JB >
