You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ace.apache.org by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> on 2011/01/27 06:45:00 UTC
ACE roadmap Jira
Hi all,
FYI, I created a Jira brainstorming umbrella to define the ACE roadmap:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-115
The purpose is to kind in mind our discussions and create child tasks
that we will pick up.
Feel free to complete it.
@Angelo, I know that you're working hard on unit tests, etc. Feel free
to append comments concerning next steps around this topic.
Thanks
Regards
JB
Re: ACE roadmap Jira
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Totally agree for the release asap. I'm working on tests, doc, etc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:11:17
To: <ac...@incubator.apache.org>; <jb...@nanthrax.net>
Subject: Re: ACE roadmap Jira
Hello JB,
On 27 Jan 2011, at 6:45 , Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> FYI, I created a Jira brainstorming umbrella to define the ACE roadmap:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-115
> The purpose is to kind in mind our discussions and create child tasks that we will pick up.
My suggestion for implementing a roadmap would be to define versions in Jira and start assigning issues to them. That way we can use the "roadmap" feature of Jira to track progress:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
So our first release would be 0.8.0 (for example), and we can start assigning issues to it.
> Feel free to complete it.
In general I feel we should try to cut our first release relatively soon, and try to get into a rhythm. Therefore in general I think we should look at what's fairly stable now and start with that.
Another question I have is what we should release. ACE is very modular, and can be assembled and configured in different ways. On the other hand, a lot of bundles are related. In short I don't think it makes a lot of sense releasing bundles one by one. I would be in favor of a single release of all (stable) bundles.
Also, I would like to take the first release as an opportunity to properly baseline all bundle and package versions, use a version policy that conforms to the one the OSGi Alliance recommends and only bump versions when things actually change. That means that our next release will probably contain bundles and packages that will not all be the same. This is very similar to the OSGi specification itself, that is released as for example 4.2 but contains packages with versions like 1.3, 1.2, 2.1, etc.
> @Angelo, I know that you're working hard on unit tests, etc. Feel free to append comments concerning next steps around this topic.
It's mainly integration tests that still need porting, as described in:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-79
From the looks of it, Angelo has already made great progress here! Some help from a Maven expert would be nice so we can properly hook up the tests.
Greetings, Marcel
Re: ACE roadmap Jira
Posted by Angelo van der Sijpt <an...@luminis.eu>.
Hi,
On Jan 30, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
> Hello JB,
>
> The absolute minimum requirement is that we release the sources. I would definitely be in favor of having a single archive that contains all of them and that can be unpacked and built with a single command. The result of "building" should at the minimum be a set of OSGi bundles, but maybe we should also automatically generate some assemblies that can directly be "run".
I agree we should aim for as few artifacts as possible. On that same note, we might want to look into reducing the number of bundles too; for instance, we have a number of dedicated API-bundles which can very well be merged into other ones.
>
> As binaries, I would like to release two "assemblies", one containing the whole server, the other containing a target that consists of an OSGi framework and the ACE management agent. Both must be "unzip and run".
>
> On 30 Jan 2011, at 7:58 , Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
>> regarding the release preparation, I think that we need to clean distribution. I think that the users are a little lost with the current artifact delivery.
>
> I would love to hear what confuses users the most right now, and if the idea mentioned above would help.
>
>> I'm working of an assembly, embedding Felix/Karaf to provide a runtime deployment platform.
>
> You did see the ones we currently have, (ace-target-devserver and ace-target-devgateway)?
>
> One thing that Angelo is still working on is this one:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-98
>
> That could replace the current target with a small launcher that, using the OSGi 4.2 launching API can launch any framework you supply, and run it with a management agent. I think that's the most elegant and simple way of bootstrapping OSGi with ACE.
Work on ACE-98 is slowly moving along. When the launcher target is far enough along (see subtasks), we should be able to make this the de-facto way for starting a target, and drop the target-devgateway. We can then choose to release binaries for (a) the 'management agent' bundle, or (b) the roll-you-own management agent.
>
> The server now basically runs on a bare bones OSGi framework. Of course you can deploy a lot of things alongside, and for the developer we do (things like a shell). Ultimately, the server could also start out as a target and should be provisionable by a different ACE instance. Of course you then get into the question "who provisions the first provisioning server" and for that we need this assembly. :)
>
>> My question is:
>> - do we provide several artifacts (Web UI tarball/zip, file server tarball/zip, etc) or one providing all modules (one tarball/zip with web UI, etc) ?
>
> For one, I would not want to release the "file server" at all. It was more or less an intermediate step to get ACE up and running and not intended for real use.
Agreed; the step from filebased server to 'repository based' server seems to be rather confusing anyway.
>
> The server with web UI and the target I would want to release separately as stated above.
>
>> WDYT ?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On 01/29/2011 01:11 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
>>> Hello JB,
>>>
>>> On 27 Jan 2011, at 6:45 , Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>>
>>>> FYI, I created a Jira brainstorming umbrella to define the ACE roadmap:
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-115
>>>
>>>> The purpose is to kind in mind our discussions and create child tasks
>>>> that we will pick up.
>>>
>>> My suggestion for implementing a roadmap would be to define versions in
>>> Jira and start assigning issues to them. That way we can use the
>>> "roadmap" feature of Jira to track progress:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
>>>
>>> So our first release would be 0.8.0 (for example), and we can start
>>> assigning issues to it.
>>>
>>>> Feel free to complete it.
>>>
>>> In general I feel we should try to cut our first release relatively
>>> soon, and try to get into a rhythm. Therefore in general I think we
>>> should look at what's fairly stable now and start with that.
>>>
>>> Another question I have is what we should release. ACE is very modular,
>>> and can be assembled and configured in different ways. On the other
>>> hand, a lot of bundles are related. In short I don't think it makes a
>>> lot of sense releasing bundles one by one. I would be in favor of a
>>> single release of all (stable) bundles.
>>>
>>> Also, I would like to take the first release as an opportunity to
>>> properly baseline all bundle and package versions, use a version policy
>>> that conforms to the one the OSGi Alliance recommends and only bump
>>> versions when things actually change. That means that our next release
>>> will probably contain bundles and packages that will not all be the
>>> same. This is very similar to the OSGi specification itself, that is
>>> released as for example 4.2 but contains packages with versions like
>>> 1.3, 1.2, 2.1, etc.
>>>
>>>> @Angelo, I know that you're working hard on unit tests, etc. Feel free
>>>> to append comments concerning next steps around this topic.
>>>
>>> It's mainly integration tests that still need porting, as described in:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-79
>>>
>>> From the looks of it, Angelo has already made great progress here! Some
>>> help from a Maven expert would be nice so we can properly hook up the tests.
>>>
>>> Greetings, Marcel
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> ---------------------------------
>> HomePage
>> http://www.nanthrax.net
>> ---------------------------------
>> Contacts
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> jb@nanthrax.net
>> ---------------------------------
>> OpenSource
>> BuildProcess/AutoDeploy
>> http://buildprocess.sourceforge.net
>> Apache ServiceMix
>> http://servicemix.apache.org
>> -----------------------------------
>> PGP : 17D4F086
>
Re: ACE roadmap Jira
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
It makes sense. Thx
Regards
JB
-----Original Message-----
From: Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:39:09
To: <ac...@incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: ace-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: ACE roadmap Jira
Hello JB,
The absolute minimum requirement is that we release the sources. I would definitely be in favor of having a single archive that contains all of them and that can be unpacked and built with a single command. The result of "building" should at the minimum be a set of OSGi bundles, but maybe we should also automatically generate some assemblies that can directly be "run".
As binaries, I would like to release two "assemblies", one containing the whole server, the other containing a target that consists of an OSGi framework and the ACE management agent. Both must be "unzip and run".
On 30 Jan 2011, at 7:58 , Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> regarding the release preparation, I think that we need to clean distribution. I think that the users are a little lost with the current artifact delivery.
I would love to hear what confuses users the most right now, and if the idea mentioned above would help.
> I'm working of an assembly, embedding Felix/Karaf to provide a runtime deployment platform.
You did see the ones we currently have, (ace-target-devserver and ace-target-devgateway)?
One thing that Angelo is still working on is this one:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-98
That could replace the current target with a small launcher that, using the OSGi 4.2 launching API can launch any framework you supply, and run it with a management agent. I think that's the most elegant and simple way of bootstrapping OSGi with ACE.
The server now basically runs on a bare bones OSGi framework. Of course you can deploy a lot of things alongside, and for the developer we do (things like a shell). Ultimately, the server could also start out as a target and should be provisionable by a different ACE instance. Of course you then get into the question "who provisions the first provisioning server" and for that we need this assembly. :)
> My question is:
> - do we provide several artifacts (Web UI tarball/zip, file server tarball/zip, etc) or one providing all modules (one tarball/zip with web UI, etc) ?
For one, I would not want to release the "file server" at all. It was more or less an intermediate step to get ACE up and running and not intended for real use.
The server with web UI and the target I would want to release separately as stated above.
> WDYT ?
>
> Thanks
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 01/29/2011 01:11 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
>> Hello JB,
>>
>> On 27 Jan 2011, at 6:45 , Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>
>>> FYI, I created a Jira brainstorming umbrella to define the ACE roadmap:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-115
>>
>>> The purpose is to kind in mind our discussions and create child tasks
>>> that we will pick up.
>>
>> My suggestion for implementing a roadmap would be to define versions in
>> Jira and start assigning issues to them. That way we can use the
>> "roadmap" feature of Jira to track progress:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
>>
>> So our first release would be 0.8.0 (for example), and we can start
>> assigning issues to it.
>>
>>> Feel free to complete it.
>>
>> In general I feel we should try to cut our first release relatively
>> soon, and try to get into a rhythm. Therefore in general I think we
>> should look at what's fairly stable now and start with that.
>>
>> Another question I have is what we should release. ACE is very modular,
>> and can be assembled and configured in different ways. On the other
>> hand, a lot of bundles are related. In short I don't think it makes a
>> lot of sense releasing bundles one by one. I would be in favor of a
>> single release of all (stable) bundles.
>>
>> Also, I would like to take the first release as an opportunity to
>> properly baseline all bundle and package versions, use a version policy
>> that conforms to the one the OSGi Alliance recommends and only bump
>> versions when things actually change. That means that our next release
>> will probably contain bundles and packages that will not all be the
>> same. This is very similar to the OSGi specification itself, that is
>> released as for example 4.2 but contains packages with versions like
>> 1.3, 1.2, 2.1, etc.
>>
>>> @Angelo, I know that you're working hard on unit tests, etc. Feel free
>>> to append comments concerning next steps around this topic.
>>
>> It's mainly integration tests that still need porting, as described in:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-79
>>
>> From the looks of it, Angelo has already made great progress here! Some
>> help from a Maven expert would be nice so we can properly hook up the tests.
>>
>> Greetings, Marcel
>>
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> ---------------------------------
> HomePage
> http://www.nanthrax.net
> ---------------------------------
> Contacts
> jbonofre@apache.org
> jb@nanthrax.net
> ---------------------------------
> OpenSource
> BuildProcess/AutoDeploy
> http://buildprocess.sourceforge.net
> Apache ServiceMix
> http://servicemix.apache.org
> -----------------------------------
> PGP : 17D4F086
Re: ACE roadmap Jira
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>.
Hello JB,
The absolute minimum requirement is that we release the sources. I would definitely be in favor of having a single archive that contains all of them and that can be unpacked and built with a single command. The result of "building" should at the minimum be a set of OSGi bundles, but maybe we should also automatically generate some assemblies that can directly be "run".
As binaries, I would like to release two "assemblies", one containing the whole server, the other containing a target that consists of an OSGi framework and the ACE management agent. Both must be "unzip and run".
On 30 Jan 2011, at 7:58 , Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> regarding the release preparation, I think that we need to clean distribution. I think that the users are a little lost with the current artifact delivery.
I would love to hear what confuses users the most right now, and if the idea mentioned above would help.
> I'm working of an assembly, embedding Felix/Karaf to provide a runtime deployment platform.
You did see the ones we currently have, (ace-target-devserver and ace-target-devgateway)?
One thing that Angelo is still working on is this one:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-98
That could replace the current target with a small launcher that, using the OSGi 4.2 launching API can launch any framework you supply, and run it with a management agent. I think that's the most elegant and simple way of bootstrapping OSGi with ACE.
The server now basically runs on a bare bones OSGi framework. Of course you can deploy a lot of things alongside, and for the developer we do (things like a shell). Ultimately, the server could also start out as a target and should be provisionable by a different ACE instance. Of course you then get into the question "who provisions the first provisioning server" and for that we need this assembly. :)
> My question is:
> - do we provide several artifacts (Web UI tarball/zip, file server tarball/zip, etc) or one providing all modules (one tarball/zip with web UI, etc) ?
For one, I would not want to release the "file server" at all. It was more or less an intermediate step to get ACE up and running and not intended for real use.
The server with web UI and the target I would want to release separately as stated above.
> WDYT ?
>
> Thanks
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 01/29/2011 01:11 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
>> Hello JB,
>>
>> On 27 Jan 2011, at 6:45 , Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>
>>> FYI, I created a Jira brainstorming umbrella to define the ACE roadmap:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-115
>>
>>> The purpose is to kind in mind our discussions and create child tasks
>>> that we will pick up.
>>
>> My suggestion for implementing a roadmap would be to define versions in
>> Jira and start assigning issues to them. That way we can use the
>> "roadmap" feature of Jira to track progress:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
>>
>> So our first release would be 0.8.0 (for example), and we can start
>> assigning issues to it.
>>
>>> Feel free to complete it.
>>
>> In general I feel we should try to cut our first release relatively
>> soon, and try to get into a rhythm. Therefore in general I think we
>> should look at what's fairly stable now and start with that.
>>
>> Another question I have is what we should release. ACE is very modular,
>> and can be assembled and configured in different ways. On the other
>> hand, a lot of bundles are related. In short I don't think it makes a
>> lot of sense releasing bundles one by one. I would be in favor of a
>> single release of all (stable) bundles.
>>
>> Also, I would like to take the first release as an opportunity to
>> properly baseline all bundle and package versions, use a version policy
>> that conforms to the one the OSGi Alliance recommends and only bump
>> versions when things actually change. That means that our next release
>> will probably contain bundles and packages that will not all be the
>> same. This is very similar to the OSGi specification itself, that is
>> released as for example 4.2 but contains packages with versions like
>> 1.3, 1.2, 2.1, etc.
>>
>>> @Angelo, I know that you're working hard on unit tests, etc. Feel free
>>> to append comments concerning next steps around this topic.
>>
>> It's mainly integration tests that still need porting, as described in:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-79
>>
>> From the looks of it, Angelo has already made great progress here! Some
>> help from a Maven expert would be nice so we can properly hook up the tests.
>>
>> Greetings, Marcel
>>
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> ---------------------------------
> HomePage
> http://www.nanthrax.net
> ---------------------------------
> Contacts
> jbonofre@apache.org
> jb@nanthrax.net
> ---------------------------------
> OpenSource
> BuildProcess/AutoDeploy
> http://buildprocess.sourceforge.net
> Apache ServiceMix
> http://servicemix.apache.org
> -----------------------------------
> PGP : 17D4F086
Re: ACE roadmap Jira
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi Marcel,
regarding the release preparation, I think that we need to clean
distribution. I think that the users are a little lost with the current
artifact delivery.
I'm working of an assembly, embedding Felix/Karaf to provide a runtime
deployment platform.
My question is:
- do we provide several artifacts (Web UI tarball/zip, file server
tarball/zip, etc) or one providing all modules (one tarball/zip with web
UI, etc) ?
WDYT ?
Thanks
Regards
JB
On 01/29/2011 01:11 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
> Hello JB,
>
> On 27 Jan 2011, at 6:45 , Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
>> FYI, I created a Jira brainstorming umbrella to define the ACE roadmap:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-115
>
>> The purpose is to kind in mind our discussions and create child tasks
>> that we will pick up.
>
> My suggestion for implementing a roadmap would be to define versions in
> Jira and start assigning issues to them. That way we can use the
> "roadmap" feature of Jira to track progress:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
>
> So our first release would be 0.8.0 (for example), and we can start
> assigning issues to it.
>
>> Feel free to complete it.
>
> In general I feel we should try to cut our first release relatively
> soon, and try to get into a rhythm. Therefore in general I think we
> should look at what's fairly stable now and start with that.
>
> Another question I have is what we should release. ACE is very modular,
> and can be assembled and configured in different ways. On the other
> hand, a lot of bundles are related. In short I don't think it makes a
> lot of sense releasing bundles one by one. I would be in favor of a
> single release of all (stable) bundles.
>
> Also, I would like to take the first release as an opportunity to
> properly baseline all bundle and package versions, use a version policy
> that conforms to the one the OSGi Alliance recommends and only bump
> versions when things actually change. That means that our next release
> will probably contain bundles and packages that will not all be the
> same. This is very similar to the OSGi specification itself, that is
> released as for example 4.2 but contains packages with versions like
> 1.3, 1.2, 2.1, etc.
>
>> @Angelo, I know that you're working hard on unit tests, etc. Feel free
>> to append comments concerning next steps around this topic.
>
> It's mainly integration tests that still need porting, as described in:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-79
>
> From the looks of it, Angelo has already made great progress here! Some
> help from a Maven expert would be nice so we can properly hook up the tests.
>
> Greetings, Marcel
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
---------------------------------
HomePage
http://www.nanthrax.net
---------------------------------
Contacts
jbonofre@apache.org
jb@nanthrax.net
---------------------------------
OpenSource
BuildProcess/AutoDeploy
http://buildprocess.sourceforge.net
Apache ServiceMix
http://servicemix.apache.org
-----------------------------------
PGP : 17D4F086
Re: ACE roadmap Jira
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Marcel Offermans wrote
>
> My suggestion for implementing a roadmap would be to define versions in Jira and start assigning issues to them. That way we can use the "roadmap" feature of Jira to track progress:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
>
> So our first release would be 0.8.0 (for example), and we can start assigning issues to it.
>
+1
>
> In general I feel we should try to cut our first release relatively soon, and try to get into a rhythm. Therefore in general I think we should look at what's fairly stable now and start with that.
>
> Another question I have is what we should release. ACE is very modular, and can be assembled and configured in different ways. On the other hand, a lot of bundles are related. In short I don't think it makes a lot of sense releasing bundles one by one. I would be in favor of a single release of all (stable) bundles.
>
> Also, I would like to take the first release as an opportunity to properly baseline all bundle and package versions, use a version policy that conforms to the one the OSGi Alliance recommends and only bump versions when things actually change. That means that our next release will probably contain bundles and packages that will not all be the same. This is very similar to the OSGi specification itself, that is released as for example 4.2 but contains packages with versions like 1.3, 1.2, 2.1, etc.
>
Makes totally sense - I think it's important that we make it easy to
install and run ACE, which gets us hopefully a lot of interested people
having a look, test driving it etc.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: ACE roadmap Jira
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>.
Hello JB,
On 27 Jan 2011, at 6:45 , Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> FYI, I created a Jira brainstorming umbrella to define the ACE roadmap:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-115
> The purpose is to kind in mind our discussions and create child tasks that we will pick up.
My suggestion for implementing a roadmap would be to define versions in Jira and start assigning issues to them. That way we can use the "roadmap" feature of Jira to track progress:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
So our first release would be 0.8.0 (for example), and we can start assigning issues to it.
> Feel free to complete it.
In general I feel we should try to cut our first release relatively soon, and try to get into a rhythm. Therefore in general I think we should look at what's fairly stable now and start with that.
Another question I have is what we should release. ACE is very modular, and can be assembled and configured in different ways. On the other hand, a lot of bundles are related. In short I don't think it makes a lot of sense releasing bundles one by one. I would be in favor of a single release of all (stable) bundles.
Also, I would like to take the first release as an opportunity to properly baseline all bundle and package versions, use a version policy that conforms to the one the OSGi Alliance recommends and only bump versions when things actually change. That means that our next release will probably contain bundles and packages that will not all be the same. This is very similar to the OSGi specification itself, that is released as for example 4.2 but contains packages with versions like 1.3, 1.2, 2.1, etc.
> @Angelo, I know that you're working hard on unit tests, etc. Feel free to append comments concerning next steps around this topic.
It's mainly integration tests that still need porting, as described in:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACE-79
From the looks of it, Angelo has already made great progress here! Some help from a Maven expert would be nice so we can properly hook up the tests.
Greetings, Marcel