Hi Richard,
thank you so much. Let me contact you directly and plan a call second
week of December if you are available.
Thank again,
Regards
JB
On 11/26/2015 09:28 AM, Richard Nicholson wrote:
Christian,
If OSGi Alliance membership fee isn’t the issue - and time contributed
by engineers isn’t the issue - then if your management could reach out
the me and explain the problem I’d happily look into it.
As CEO of Paremus - my primary consideration is the cost of membership
(Paremus are Strategic Members) and the time my engineers spend on OSGi
Alliance activities & Bndtools which we also lead,
So I’m genuinely curious and willing to help.
Best
Richard
On 26 Nov 2015, at 08:19, Christian Schneider <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I agree with JB. It would be great if the foundation would also allow
more individuals to participate in the specification work.
In the open source world there is lots of expertise around OSGi that
can be leveraged.
For JB and me the problem is that we (till now) can not convince our
company to become a member. Honestly I think this is sad as the money
is clearly not the big issue.
On the other hand we would be able to kind of sponsor part of our time
to work on specifications. Interestingly this is less of an issue at
Talend as it is decided on another management level.
Christian
On 26.11.2015 08:37, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi Richard,
it's not excessive for sure, it's more kind of "direction concern"
for Talend. I'm dealing with the Talend board to convince (I have a
meeting about that the second week of December), we will see.
The point is more kind of person involvement: what happens if "OSGi
people" leaves the company to another one. It means that the "new
company" has to become "OSGi member".
Not a big deal, but it could be great to have non-commercial/Apache
agreement somehow maybe.
Regards
JB
On 11/26/2015 08:26 AM, Richard Nicholson wrote:
The OSGi Alliance exists because of the companies that step forward
to fund it. Then - over and above this financial commitment - those
same companies actively put engineering resources into drive OSGi
specifications, CT’s & RI’s - many of which are then used by the OSS
world including this community.
We do have a program for non-commercial Academic Institutions. But
commercial organisations do need to pay their dues.
For reference, we are only talking $5K a year for Contributing
Associate. Hardly excessive?
Best Wishes
Richard
On 26 Nov 2015, at 07:03, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
As a company, I know that it's simple. I'm talking with the Talend
board, but unfortunately, I'm not sure that Talend would be
interested to participate in the OSGi Alliance.
Maybe we can talk together about the "personal participation"
related to OpenSource/Apache projects.
WDYT ?
Regards
JB
On 11/26/2015 07:59 AM, Richard Nicholson wrote:
Jean-Baptist
Re: Joining the OSGi Alliance is simple. I’d be happy to walk your
Talend management through the process.
Best Wishes
Richard
On 26 Nov 2015, at 06:51, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi David,
We created features instead of using directly OBR as OBR doesn't
cover the needs (features contain transitive features,
configuration, bundles, etc). Generating a feature from OBR
repository will result to incomplete and limited features IMHO.
As bndtools is a design/development time, I would prefer that it
can generate a complete feature.
I agree that a spec enhancement, containing a mix feature (as a
generic OSGi feature), subsystem, OSGi Repositories (new name of
OBR) can be interesting.
As I said in another e-mail, I would be more than happy to
participate, but as Apache is not a company and can't pay the
OSGi Alliance, it's not easy for us to be part of the OSGi
Alliance (other than being employee of a company already member
of the OSGi Alliance).
Regard
JB
On 11/26/2015 07:13 AM, David Leangen wrote:
Hi JB,
If a plugin is required to create a features set for each
development
environment, that would probably create a lot of extra work.
If instead a features set could be generated from a generic OBR
repository, then the solution would be generalised to any
development
environment. Instead of Karaf features being something totally
different, it would instead be layered on top of the OBR spec. I
think
adding a “karaf feature” capability to one or more bundles in a
repository not only makes sense, but is exactly the purpose of
the whole
capability / requirement principle.
At least, those are my thoughts…
Also, when development, I would prefer to simply have one type of
(generic) output, rather than have to specialise my output
depending on
the runtime environment. I can imagine a set of annotations that
would
make feature creating really simple.
Maybe this would be a candidate for a spec update, though I am
getting
into very unknown territory, as I am by no means an expert in
the OSGi spec.
My 2yen.
Cheers,
=David
On Nov 26, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi David,
It would be great if bndtools is able to "generate" the features.
I know that Christian discussed with bndtools guys about that,
and I'm
also jumping in bndtools to help.
WDYT ?
Regards
JB
On 11/26/2015 01:36 AM, David Leangen wrote:
Hi,
If it’s any help, I am also using bndtools in Eclipse/gradle.
I am in a
greenfield environment, so it is probably easier for me.
Thanks to the help of the kind people in this community, I was
able to
get my release process working. I do this by releasing my
bundles from
bndtools, then having Karaf pull in the bundles from that
repository. I
actually like this way of passing the baton, as it nicely
decouples my
development environment from my deployment environment, using the
standard OBR repository as the intermediary.
My only remaining challenge is, since Karaf is centred around
features,
to figure out how to convert my bnd “application” bundle into
a feature.
This is the bundle that pulls in all the other necessary
bundles based
on direct and transient requirements. Clearly, the
“application” bundle
performs the same function as a Karaf feature, so this would be an
interesting avenue to explore.
If possible this week I will experiment with adding a “Karaf
Feature”
capability to my application bundle, so that when the
repository is
installed, any bundle with this capability will be added to a
corresponding feature, which would also get installed into the
system.
If this works as I expect, and if the community is interested,
I could
try to submit a pull request.
Getting back to the title, “Bndtools & Karaf : the right way”,
I think
that this would be the “right” way to do it. :-)
Cheers,
=David
On Nov 26, 2015, at 4:29 AM, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
Yes agreed,
I have found that my reasons for leaving the maven-bundle-plugin
were artificial. You do not need a custom package type
because you
can map the lifecycle steps yourself. You can still
configure it for
a bnd file and even if it imports by default you can manually
configure it to exclude by default and set all your imports.
What I
was trying to get across was that there are a lot of great
options out
there for how to configure your environment and there is no
"the right
way". In my opinion karaf is maven centered where as bnd is
centered
on eclipse and its workspaces but they are coming together
nicely. It
may take some time to find the tools you like but there are a
lot of
really smart people out there that can help you get just the
environment you like.
David Daniel
On 2015-11-25 14:20, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
Hi,
just for the record with the maven-bundle-plugin you can
also use the
bnd file, just configure the pom accordingly.
regards, Achim
2015-11-25 16:51 GMT+01:00 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
I think different people handle things in different ways. Most
people who work on karaf seem to use the maven bundle
plugin with
pax-exam for testing. The maven-bundle-plugin uses bnd tools
underneath and just moves the configuration into your pom file
instead of .bnd or .bndrun file. What I have been moving
to as a
very beginner in karaf is the bnd-maven-plugin and
bnd-indexer-plugin. These allow for tighter integration
with bnd
tools but are really alpha in bnd tool 3.1 You have to get the
builds from bnd tools ci and they don't have support for bnd
tools running and packaging. I also find myself taking
all the
features that I use from karaf and coping the information in
there to bnd files so I can run test and package from bnd
tools
which is a lot of duplication of work. Bnd Tools is
working on
adding better maven support but they are really built up
around
eclipse and gradle at this time. I think you will have to
find
what works for you and what features you like.
David Daniel
On 2015-11-25 09:41, deadbrain wrote:
Hi all Karaf gurus,
just a little question dealing with BndTools, I am
supposed
to refactor
an existing Spring DM application into an OSGi + Blueprint
application
to be deployed inside ServiceMix (3.4 or 4). As a
consequence I would
like to use Bndtools but launching Karaf rather than the
defaut Gogo
shell would be more convenient.
What is the best way to do that ?
I am supposed to write or reuse an ApplicationFactory ? I
found a couple
of implementations in github (ready to use ?)
Is there any other valuable option?
Kind regards
Jerome
--
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>
Software Architect / Project Manager / Scrum Master
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
http://blog.nanthrax.net <http://blog.nanthrax.net/>
Talend -http://www.talend.com <http://www.talend.com/>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de <http://www.liquid-reality.de/>
Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com <http://www.talend.com/>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[email protected]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
