I would suggest 'internal' instead of 'overrides'. The features
repository should contain not only the overrides but also servicemix
features which are not intended to be installed in other distributions,
e.g. any servicemix specific commands or configurations
On 24.02.2014 22:10, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
Hi Krzysztof,
Yeah, if we have to add those kinds of overrides again, it would
definitely make sense to move those into a separate file as well.
Looks like we still have one such feature around with the jax-rs
feature in that file (not sure that one is still required though).
Perhaps we should call that feature 'overrides' or something like that
to clarify what it does?
Regards,
Gert Vanthienen
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak
<[email protected]> wrote:
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
