2016-04-18 18:02 GMT+02:00 Brad Johnson <[email protected]>:
> Jean-Baptiste, > > So would something like a camel-core feature then be converted into a > static bundle with all its dependencies for bootstrap? It seems that what > one could do is define the features and the read the features into a set at > bundle time to eliminate any overlap and then create the list of required > mvn:group/artifact statements in the new bundle. > Well, that's actually what the karaf plugin does when generating the assembly. Though it does the same thing than the OSGi resolver would do at runtime, and handles additional things such as configuration, start levels, libraries, etc... > > But that also seems a prime candidate for leveraging Maven to create that > same thing. It has all the information required to create that set of > required bundles for bootstrap sans features. But karaf would have to be > made aware of them somehow. Would these be specified in the > startup.properties and stored in the lib? > > Sorry, I should probably just wait and see as I imagine it gets a bit > irritating to go over stuff you've already thought out. I'm pretty stoked > about the possibility though so my mind naturally races on to how I'd like > to see it work and how it could make my life easier. > > Brad > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Starting from features, you can create a full static custom distribution, >> not actually really using features but startup bundles. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> >> On 04/18/2016 05:47 PM, Brad Johnson wrote: >> >>> I don't know if it is a big deal but here's an example of a current >>> project I work on. In a static environment much of that could be >>> generated I'd think. At least the parts that are straight bundles. And >>> really, in a static include the feature tags themselves could be pulled >>> in and expanded to bundle statements as well since in the end we aren't >>> leveraging features from an installed karaf anymore. Those >>> features/profiles would act more like recipes for the creation of the >>> karaf-boot itself. >>> >>> If one went with a convention over configuration approach as well then >>> one could always specify a configuration.cfg in the root of the >>> resources directory and have that automatically converted into a cfg >>> file in the bundle that matched the PID. The whole configfile section >>> could be eliminated then. If a configuration.cfg file is found in the >>> resource directory then the static compilation could turn that into the >>> correct PID.cfg and install it during bundle creation into the etc >>> directory for boot up. >>> >>> None of that is huge deal but it would make life a bit more convenient >>> and since one is now working from a static point of view it seems it >>> would be much easier to accomplish. >>> >>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> >>> <features name="${project.artifactId}-${project.version}" >>> xmlns="http://karaf.apache.org/xmlns/features/v1.0.0"; >>> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"; >>> xsi:schemaLocation="http://karaf.apache.org/xmlns/features/v1.0.0 >>> http://karaf.apache.org/xmlns/features/v1.0.0";> >>> >>> <!-- The repositories of the Middleware --> >>> >>> >>> <repository>mvn:org.apache.camel.karaf/apache-camel/${camel-version}/xml/features</repository> >>> >>> >>> <repository>mvn:org.apache.cxf.karaf/apache-cxf/${cxf-version}/xml/features</repository> >>> >>> <feature name="payment-hub-gateway-prerequisites" >>> version="${project.version}"> >>> >>> <configfile finalname="/etc/com.foo.orchestration.cfg" >>> >>> override="false">mvn:com.foo/orchestration/${project.version}/cfg/configuration</configfile> >>> <configfile finalname="/etc/com.foo.connector.litle.cfg" >>> >>> override="false">mvn:com.foo/connector.litle/${project.version}/cfg/configuration</configfile> >>> <configfile finalname="/etc/com.foo.gateway.cfg" >>> >>> override="false">mvn:com.foo/gateway/${project.version}/cfg/configuration</configfile> >>> <configfile finalname="/etc/com.foo.batch.cfg" >>> >>> override="false">mvn:com.foo/batch/${project.version}/cfg/configuration</configfile> >>> <configfile finalname="/etc/com.foo.bar.cfg" >>> >>> override="false">mvn:com.foo/bar/${project.version}/cfg/configuration</configfile> >>> <configfile finalname="/etc/com.foo.services.cfg" >>> >>> override="false">mvn:com.foo/services/${project.version}/cfg/configuration</configfile> >>> >>> <feature>camel-core</feature> >>> <feature>camel-blueprint</feature> >>> <feature>camel-cxf</feature> >>> <feature>camel-jackson</feature> >>> <feature>camel-xmljson</feature> >>> <feature>camel-beanio</feature> >>> <feature>camel-xstream</feature> >>> <feature>camel-dozer</feature> >>> <feature>camel-velocity</feature> >>> <feature>cxf-ws-security</feature> >>> >>> <bundle>mvn:org.apache.aries.blueprint/org.apache.aries.blueprint.core.compatibility/1.0.0</bundle> >>> >>> <bundle>mvn:org.codehaus.jettison/jettison/${jettison-version}</bundle> >>> >>> >>> <bundle>mvn:org.apache.commons/commons-lang3/${commons-lang3-version}</bundle> >>> >>> >>> <bundle>wrap:mvn:org.apache.httpcomponents/httpcore/${httpcore-version}</bundle> >>> >>> >>> <bundle>wrap:mvn:org.apache.httpcomponents/httpclient/${httpclient-version}</bundle> >>> >>> <bundle>wrap:mvn:commons-io/commons-io/${commons-io-version}</bundle> >>> </feature> >>> >>> <feature name="foo-hub-gateway" version="${project.version}"> >>> >>> <bundle>mvn:com.foo/models/${project.version}</bundle> >>> etc. etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Christian Schneider >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> I am not very familiar with the concept of profiles till now. >>> Guillaume explained it a bit to me but honestly I hope we do not >>> need it too often. An OSGi application should be mainly built out of >>> bundles and profiles concentrate more on the non OSGi static files >>> in karaf. >>> >>> The main part of the packaging in karaf boot is to resolve features >>> at build time. It uses the static profile but nothing else from the >>> profiles concept. This part already works. I have created such a >>> packaging for the tasklist-ds example: >>> >>> https://github.com/cschneider/Karaf-Tutorial/tree/master/tasklist-ds/app >>> >>> The second part. The karaf boot development model is still in the >>> making but you can already use the packaging if you want. >>> >>> About features and poms you are right. You have to maintain two sets >>> of dependencies but this is just a result of the fact that OSGi >>> resolves differently from maven. So this never will completely go >>> away. What we could do with a pom is create an obr repository. This >>> could then be used to back a feature repo. So currently in a feature >>> we have to list all the bundles, with a backing obr repo we could >>> instead only list some requirements (like top level bundles) and >>> resolve the rest. >>> >>> I have prototyped such a packaging using bndtools as it already has >>> the OBR resolving: >>> >>> https://github.com/cschneider/bndtools-tutorials/tree/master/tasklist-ds >>> The creation of the repository went quite smoothly as eclipse m2e >>> provides nice tooling to define the pom and the necessary excludes. >>> Defining the requirements in bndtools also works really nicely as >>> they got a good UI for it. >>> >>> Unfortunately bndtools does not know about features. So while this >>> approach is better than defining each single bundle of an >>> application it is not really better than the karaf approach were you >>> define most of your deps as features. So this would only be really >>> useable once we have both features and a backing obr repo. >>> >>> Another thing that I found bndtools is lacking is all the >>> preparation karaf already has for some of the more complicated >>> features like tansactions and cxf. There it is not enough to just >>> install bundles. >>> You also have to fiddle with the boot path for transactions and some >>> java se spec nightmares in the case of cxf. So these are the regions >>> where karaf really helps. >>> >>> Christian >>> >>> On 18.04.2016 07:24, Brad Johnson wrote: >>> >>> Christian, >>> >>> I just re-read your section on the static profiles. That makes >>> sense. I could see this becoming like puppet/chef sort of >>> recipes or even like the way Docker allows building up of >>> images. Not that I know those that well. I use features all >>> the time of course but see huge advantage to making that a >>> bundle time set of static steps instead of the current runtime >>> usage. Not that the current use is bad, mind you, its context >>> is different and slimming down the karaf core by eliminating >>> that management overhead would be good for something like >>> karaf-boot. In the current monolithic enterprise environment it >>> makes sense to have stacks of features available to load when >>> necessary. The static mechanism would get rid of that. But it >>> would also permit building up a centralized registry or library >>> of features that one could leverage by adding into a boot recipe >>> of some sort. Maybe we'd get the quick flexibility for >>> creating projects that archetypes always seemed to promise but >>> never quit seemed to manage. >>> >>> One item that has always bothered me about features is they are >>> orthogonal to but replicate much of what goes into a POM. One >>> ends up with two sets of dependency management mechanisms that >>> have never really dovetailed. It would be nice if we had a >>> Maven plugin that could look at the dependencies in a POM and >>> create a static feature profile or at least give a good guess at >>> what they should be while allowing for some tweaking. Perhaps >>> since the karaf-boot environment is static and doesn't rely on >>> or expect another environment to provide dependencies that would >>> be easier to accomplish. >>> >>> Funny how Moore's law took a sideways turn on us. Now we don't >>> have the ever increasing clock speed but we have cores coming >>> out our ears and RAM and disk space in abundance. A little >>> fatness in our deployments is an acceptable trade off now. >>> >>> Brad >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Christian Schneider >>> http://www.liquid-reality.de >>> >>> Open Source Architect >>> http://www.talend.com >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> [email protected] >> http://blog.nanthrax.net >> Talend - http://www.talend.com >> > > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Red Hat, Open Source Integration Email: [email protected] Web: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
