Hi JB, I see more issues using felix http:
1. it only supports felix today AFAIK which directly impacts the production since then your monitoring/observability/instrumentation can be to redo so for me it is way more impacting than the dev side - and more vicious 2. felix is a fatjar so you can't upgrade jetty when needed which is also a big loss compared to not having R7 IMHO How far is paxweb from R7? Not being 100% compliant is fine IMO while: a. it can be manually switched to a compliant impl if required b. there is no regression from previous version Indeed just my 2cts, Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le mar. 7 juil. 2020 à 11:18, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> a écrit : > Hi everyone, > > It’s more than a year now that we started Apache Karaf 4.3.0 release > process, fully supporting OSGi R7. > > If the 4.3.0 distribution is ready, we are blocked by Pax Web. I’m > concerned about that as R8 will be there and we will have issue in Pax Web > again. > > Greg started a huge effort heading to Pax Web 8.0.0 with a large > refactoring. > However, the process is long and painful. > So, I think it’s fair to have a discussion about the HTTP service in Karaf > and "relationship" with Pax Web. > > I see three options for Karaf 4.3.0: > > 1. We are able to release Pax Web 8.0.0 (with R7 support) and so, no > brainer, we can move forward. > 2. Instead of using Pax Web by default, we "switch" to Felix HTTP by > default. For the "pure" HTTP service, it will be transparent but it would > have two impacts: > * the configuration changes (as obviously etc/org.ops4j.pax.web.cfg > doesn’t exist anymore) > * users using WebContainer PaxWeb API instead of HTTP service won’t work > 3. We consider that Pax Web as it is today is not flexible enough and too > painful, and we start an even larger refactoring on Pax Web. > > The reason why I’m bringing this discussion on the mailing list: we really > need a clear plan and release 4.3.0 (I would really love to release 4.3.0 > mid July max, so we need a plan). > > Thoughts ? > > Regards > JB
