Hi, See my comment inline
> Le 7 juil. 2020 à 11:22, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > 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 Good point, we can have impact with Equinox, true. > 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 That’s a discussion standpoint. Having a fat jar can be seen as a good point as upgrading Jetty (or Tomcat, or undertow) is not always (never ;)) "smooth" at Pax Web. > > 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 > I think we are pretty close just for R7, but we also started a large refactoring (maybe it was too "ambitious"). So, another approach would by to start from Pax Web 7.2.x and just update the minimal set to R7 (new HTTP service). Regards JB > 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
