Hi JB,

Where can I find more info on this ? And can it be used already ?

Best regards,
Steven

On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 1:52 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>
wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> yes, I introduced a new smx: protocol handler that takes a json
> descriptor. This json descriptor contains:
> - source artifacts
> - OSGi headers
> - eventually transformers (for META-INF/services, MANIFEST, etc)
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 10:30 AM Grzegorz Grzybek <gr.grzy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > I'd like to ask about:
> >
> > For SMX bundles, the objective is not to move as it is. The
> > > objective it's to use the new bundle descriptor I started in Pax URL.
> > > Karaf "Bundles" will host just the descriptor to create the bundle on
> > > the fly (and eventually cached). The other part of SMX (assembly +
> > > spec) can be moved in Karaf subproject.
> > >
> >
> > I know that providing OSGi metadata to external 3rd party libs which do
> not
> > care about OSGi is a bit PITA... (I remember back in theserverside.com
> days
> > I suggested using external metadata instead of one kept in
> > META-INF/MANIFEST.MF...)
> > How do you imagine this on the fly generation? kind of like wrap:
> protocol?
> >
> > regards
> > Grzegorz Grzybek
> >
> > pon., 9 sty 2023 o 10:20 fpapon <fpa...@apache.org> napisał(a):
> >
> > > Hi JB,
> > >
> > > Make sense for Cave and Winegrower.
> > >
> > > About Camel-Karaf, as it was announced by the Camel team in the roadmap
> > > to Camel 4, I was thinking that it was already acted:
> > >
> > > https://camel.apache.org/blog/2023/01/camel4roadmap/
> > >
> > > I asked the question about the OSGi bundle still provide or not by
> Camel
> > > team but no clear decision, Camel team don't want to provide OSGi
> bundle
> > > for Camel core anymore.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > François
> > >
> > > On 09/01/2023 10:13, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> > > > Hi François,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for bringing this discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Here's my personal standpoint:
> > > > 1. Decanter: I started to work on Decanter 3.x (refactoring). I think
> > > > we can do a release now with just updates on the collectors/appenders
> > > > before moving forward on decanter 3.x. I propose to cut new Decanter
> > > > release asap.
> > > > 2. Cellar: quite the same as Decanter. I plan a refactoring, but it
> is
> > > > worth doing an updated version (new hazelcast, kubernetes client,
> > > > karaf version). Same: I propose to cut new Cellar release asp.
> > > > 3. Cave: I think we don't have many users on Cave, maybe it's worth
> to
> > > > move the project to "attic" ?
> > > > 4. Winegrower: same as Cave, I don't think we have a lot of users,
> > > > maybe it's worth to move the project to "attic" ?
> > > > 5. Minho:
> > > > 6. For SMX bundles, the objective is not to move as it is. The
> > > > objective it's to use the new bundle descriptor I started in Pax URL.
> > > > Karaf "Bundles" will host just the descriptor to create the bundle on
> > > > the fly (and eventually cached). The other part of SMX (assembly +
> > > > spec) can be moved in Karaf subproject.
> > > > 7. For camel-karaf, I'm open to community proposals. If it's better
> to
> > > > have it in Karaf, I'm OK with it (same question about jclouds-karaf).
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > JB
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 10:07 AM fpapon <fpa...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> I want to start a thread about Apache Karaf subprojects roadmap and
> > > >> maintainability.
> > > >>
> > > >> Today we have:
> > > >>
> > > >> - Decanter: last release on Feb. 2022
> > > >>
> > > >> - Cellar: last release on Aug. 2020
> > > >>
> > > >> - Cave: last release on Nov. 2019
> > > >>
> > > >> We also have:
> > > >>
> > > >> - Winegrower: last release on Nov. 2020
> > > >>
> > > >> - Minho: last release on Jan. 2023 (but plan to move to dedicated
> TLP
> > > >> project)
> > > >>
> > > >> There is also some discussion about moving SMX bundle and
> Camel-Karaf as
> > > >> Karaf subprojects so I think it will be nice to see what we
> would/could
> > > >> maintain.
> > > >>
> > > >> regards,
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> --
> > > >> François
> > > >>
> > > --
> > > --
> > > François
> > >
> > >
>

Reply via email to