+1, thanks to the spec usage the upgrade should be smooth anyway and not even a "major" of karaf IMO. Also very happy to not go directly to felix http which is a great impl of the spec but does not support some pure servlet features as pax does which is a big drawback IMO for users. Good decision!
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 lun. 7 sept. 2020 à 08:49, Achim Nierbeck <bcanh...@googlemail.com.invalid> a écrit : > Hi, > > I fully support the decision to go for 7.3.x for now. > I'm also fully aware of the work Greg did to Pax Web and what it needs to > get finished :) > So from my point of view, this is the best we as a community can do right > now. > I wish I would be able to help Greg more than I did. > So nobody is to blame here, sometimes we have to face the facts :) > > regards, Achim > > Am Sa., 5. Sept. 2020 um 18:57 Uhr schrieb Francois Papon < > francois.pa...@openobject.fr>: > > > Hi guys, > > > > Nobody has to be blame. > > > > All this project are community projects and all contributions are > > important. > > > > Thanks for all the great work made on PaxWeb! > > > > regards, > > > > François > > fpa...@apache.org > > > > Le 05/09/2020 à 05:57, Jean-Baptiste Onofre a écrit : > > > Hi Grzegorz > > > > > > Thanks for all the details. > > > > > > And don’t get me wrong: I don’t blame anyone and there’s no worry at > all > > ! > > > > > > The purpose is just to move forward on 4.3.0. > > > > > > So, after a long thinking, Karaf 4.3.0 with Pax Web 7.3.x is the > smarter > > and reliable move IMHO. > > > We will update to Pax Web 8 when ready. > > > > > > Thanks again for all your effort in Pax Web 8 and your great work. > > > I also take part of the blame to not have helped you more (it’s gonna > > change, promise). > > > > > > Regards > > > JB > > > > > >> Le 4 sept. 2020 à 18:51, Grzegorz Grzybek <gr.grzy...@gmail.com> a > > écrit : > > >> > > >> Hello > > >> > > >> I'm the one responsible for the delay of Pax Web 8, but also (to > > >> counterweight the blame), I'm the one who picked up the master branch > > and > > >> tried to refactor it the way I did with Pax Logging ;) > > >> > > >> As we know, felix-http is a great OSGi CMPN R7 Whiteboard (and Http > > >> Service) implementation where everything is implemented in a single > > >> "dispatcher servlet" added to single Jetty's ServletContextHandler. > > >> On the other hand, Pax Web is waaaaaaay more (WARs, JSPs, "mapping" > > >> whiteboard, welcome files, etc.). > > >> > > >> My initial goal about "refactor Pax Web" was actually > > >> https://ops4j1.jira.com/browse/PAXWEB-1123 ("HTTP Whiteboard and > > selection > > >> of the ServletContextHelper") - what could possibly go wrong? :) When > I > > >> checked how Pax Web 7.x (and current master branch) handles > "contexts", > > >> after a few months of looking/reading at the code (started April > 2019!) > > I > > >> decided to refactor the core model of Pax Web, where each web > "element" > > may > > >> be associated with one or MORE "osgi contexts" which in turn point to > a > > >> single "servlet context" (in N:1) relation. > > >> > > >> I described the design in > > >> > > > http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Fwd-PAX-WEB-State-of-Pax-Web-8-td4058782.html > > >> > > >> So, the actual Whiteboard spec compliance is almost done and it was > very > > >> deep refactoring indeed (I tried to preserve the great work of others) > > and > > >> these standard bits are missing: > > >> - tests for preprocessors (because the machinery is already there) > > >> - tests for changing registration properties of ServletContextHelper > > OSGi > > >> service > > >> - per ServletContextHelper session handling > > >> > > >> So we're very close to felix-http. > > >> > > >> The problem is that because I refactored the "core" of Pax Web so > > deeply, I > > >> still didn't touch pax-web-extender-war (though I had this component > in > > >> mind in every step of the refactoring) - I don't expect BIG problems > > >> "enabling" this in Pax Web 8. > > >> > > >> I wrote about ServletContainerInitializers here: > > >> > > > http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/HEADS-UP-Releases-schedule-4-2-10-4-3-0-RC2-Winegrower-1-0-tp4058780p4058834.html > > >> but today I made good progress with dynamic registration of > > >> servlets/filters/listeners from within SCIs (a must-have for JSPs and > > JSFs). > > >> > > >> So we can soon release Pax Web 8 with MUCH better R6/R7 compliance but > > with > > >> missing old, commonly used Pax Web stuff (WARs...) > > >> > > >> Mind that as JBO said - there are no big differences between > Whiteboard > > R6 > > >> and R7 (and the annotations he's mentioned are actually not preserved > at > > >> runtime! These are to be processed by APT...). The point is that Pax > > Web 7 > > >> had a major problem in handling this N:1 mapping between > > >> ServletContextHelper and ServletContext and it required a total > rewrite > > of > > >> the model... > > >> > > >> We can have Karaf 4.3.0 with Pax Web 7.3.x which differs from 7.2.x in > > two > > >> aspects: > > >> - Undertow 1.x → 2.0.x (Servlet API 3 → 4) > > >> - Tomcat 8 → 9 (Servlet API 3 → 4) > > >> - Jetty is not changed because the only Jetty that supports Servlet > API > > 4 > > >> is ... Jetty 10 which at the same time requires JDK 11. > > >> > > >> I wrote about Pax Web 7.3.x as being a "technical preview" here: > > >> https://groups.google.com/g/ops4j/c/6nF78NKs2qA/m/oRUxNtSyAQAJ > > >> > > >> I hope this clears the confusion and decreases my guilt ;) > > >> > > >> kind regards > > >> Grzegorz Grzybek > > >> > > >> pt., 4 wrz 2020 o 18:19 Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> > > napisał(a): > > >> > > >>> Hi Serge, > > >>> > > >>> In the R7, it’s mostly the new features on the Http Whiteboard spec: > > >>> > > >>> - the new whiteboard annotations (@HttpWhiteboardServletPattern, > > >>> @HttpWhiteboardContextSelect, @HttpWhiteboardServletMultipart) > > >>> - the pre-filtering preprocessor > > >>> > > >>> All the rest is exactly the same. > > >>> > > >>> So, no change in the existing, just new convenient preprocessor and > > >>> annotation. > > >>> > > >>> As Pax Web already provides alternative to this, it’s not a big deal. > > >>> > > >>> Regards > > >>> JB > > >>> > > >>>> Le 4 sept. 2020 à 17:55, Serge Huber <shu...@jahia.com> a écrit : > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi JB, > > >>>> > > >>>> Yeah I know the feeling of not liking to wait for releases :) > > >>>> > > >>>> Could you give an example of the missing 10%? > > >>>> > > >>>> Anyway I think it makes sense and anyway maybe we should start > > working on > > >>>> R8 & Karaf 5 ? :) > > >>>> > > >>>> So here's a non-binding +1. > > >>>> > > >>>> cheers, > > >>>> Serge... > > >>>> > > >>>> Serge Huber > > >>>> CTO & Co-Founder > > >>>> T +41 22 361 3424 > > >>>> 9 route des Jeunes | 1227 Acacias | Switzerland > > >>>> jahia.com <http://www.jahia.com/> > > >>>> SKYPE | LINKEDIN <https://www.linkedin.com/in/sergehuber> | TWITTER > > >>>> <https://twitter.com/sergehuber> | VCARD > > >>>> <http://www.jahia.com/vcard/HuberSerge.vcf> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> JOIN OUR COMMUNITY <http://www.jahia.com/> to evaluate, get > trained > > and > > >>>> to discover why Jahia is a leading User Experience Platform (UXP) > for > > >>>> Digital Transformation. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 5:46 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre < > j...@nanthrax.net> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>> Hi guys, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I have to take my duty as Karaf PMC ;) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Clearly Karaf 4.3.0 is waiting for way too long: 4.3.0-SNAPSHOT > > started > > >>> on > > >>>>> Feb 11, 2019 ! > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I discussed with Greg earlier today, and we still have work to do > for > > >>> Pax > > >>>>> Web 8.0. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> As I don’t want to hold Karaf 4.3.0 any longer, I took the decision > > to > > >>>>> move forward and upgrade Karaf 4.3.0 to Pax Web 7.3.x. > > >>>>> If Pax Web 7.3.x doesn’t fully cover R7, it covers 90% of the spec, > > and > > >>>>> I’m pretty sure most of the users don’t use the pending 10%. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So, here’s my proposal: > > >>>>> - I’m working on Pax Web 7.3.9 preparation during the week end > > (updating > > >>>>> container, etc) > > >>>>> - In the meantime, I’m preparing Karaf 4.3.0 with a cleanup of the > > >>>>> features and easy choice between Pax Web and Felix HTTP for the > HTTP > > >>> service > > >>>>> - In also reviewing the Jira to include the maximum I can in 4.3.0. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Reasonably, I think I will submit Karaf runtime 4.3.0 to vote next > > week > > >>>>> (strong commitment). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> If you have any concern or comment about this plan, please let me > > know. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks ! > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Regards > > >>>>> JB > > >>> > > > > > -- > > Apache Member > Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC > OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & > Project Lead > blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> > Co-Author of Apache Karaf Cookbook <http://bit.ly/1ps9rkS> >
