Hi Gert
Yes, my proposal is to split the features. Probably now we have nothing
what could be placed in core features, but I give you an example. Some
weeks ago we had some activemq features overwritten in servicemix
features. If I want to include servicemix features in my distribution or
include them in vanilla Karaf, I want to have such features like
Activiti or Akka, not overwritten ActiveMQ features. I'll probably use
another version of ActiveMQ. The overwritten ActiveMQ features were very
servicemix specific. The purpose of core features is a place for such
features which are necessary tobuild the servicemix distribution and
could make problems if they were included in the "public" features. We
can live with one features file (+ separate file for examples). But when
we need to define in the future some features like these for ActiveMQ,
they must be placed in separate file.
Best regards
Krzysztof
On 24.02.2014 21:01, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
Hi Krzysztof,
So, just to be clear, the proposal is to split up what we have in
assemblies/src/main/filtered-resources/features.xml into multiple
features descriptor (cfr.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/servicemix/smx5/trunk/assemblies/src/main/filtered-resources/features.xml?view=markup),
right?
Not sure how you would discriminate between the first two things
you're proposing - shouldn't any feature we build be installable on
another Karaf distribution anyway? Perhaps we can just keep those two
together for now: if I look at the current features.xml file, it could
contain everything that doesn't start with example-*. How about just
keeping the name for that one the same as it is right now?
apache-servicemix-<version>-features.xml seems to match the pattern
that other projects use for their descriptor pretty well already.
If we want, we can definitely move the examples into a separate
features files. It would make it easier for people to add the Apache
ServiceMix features to their distribution without introducing the
examples (which they're probably not interested in in that scenario
anyways). So I'm +1 for moving those features apart, perhaps we can
just attach it with another classifier,
apache-servicemix-<version>-examples.xml perhaps?
In my mind, we can best do that right now in the ServiceMix 5 codebase
as well. I assume we want to branch that off into a Karaf 3.x based
ServiceMix 6 line pretty soon anyway, so the more of these changes we
do now, the more these two lines of code are alike and the easier we
will make it for ourselves to merge changes back and forth afterwards.
Regards,
Gert Vanthienen
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi
In the discussions about the ServiceMix future and the future of ServiceMix
features it was mentioned about moving some non-core features into the Karaf
Enterprise Features subproject. Another people think, the Karaf subproject
is not too good place for such features like Activiti. Such features could
be also extracted into a separate subproject in ServiceMix which could have
a separate lifecycle, but we don't have too many such features to create a
subproject for them.
In the code base for ServiceMix 6 (working version for the Karaf 3.x line as
not decided yet which version will have the SMX based on Karaf 3.x) I'd like
to prepare 3 feature repositories
* servicemix-core - core features which will be integral part of
servicemix, not installable on other Karaf distributions
* servicemix-esb - non-core features like current Activiti integration
or missing connection factory for ActiveMQ. This repository should
provide features which will be used to build the ServiceMix
distribution and which can be also used outside the ServiceMix
distribution, e.g. in Karaf. It should have no dependency to core
ServiceMix. Currently we have not too many such features and some of
them could be moved into the original project or into the Karaf
Enterprise Features subproject (but id doesn't exist yet and many
people doesn't like the idea for moving the esb specific features
into Karaf). In the future we can have more esb features and we can
extract a separate subproject having own lifecycle,
* servicemix-examples - I think, the examples should be separated from
other features
What do you think about this idea?
Best regards and have a nice weekend
Krzysztof
--
Krzysztof Sobkowiak
JEE & OSS Architect | Technical Architect @ Capgemini
Capgemini <http://www.pl.capgemini.com/> | Software Solutions Center
<http://www.pl.capgemini-sdm.com/> | Wroclaw
e-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> |
Twitter: @KSobkowiak
--
Krzysztof Sobkowiak
JEE & OSS Architect | Technical Architect @ Capgemini
Capgemini <http://www.pl.capgemini.com/> | Software Solutions Center
<http://www.pl.capgemini-sdm.com/> | Wroclaw
e-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> |
Twitter: @KSobkowiak
