Remove old apache-karaf assembly in favor of apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full?

[David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>]

I'd like to suggest that we remove the old assemblies/apache-karaf and use instead the assemblies/apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full assemblies constructed using the new mojos.  I think we can also remove a lot of mojos from the karaf-maven-plugin.

With the exception of some configuration files, legal files, the demo files, and the inclusion of o.a.k.shell.ssh in the old minimal assembly by error, the contents of the corresponding new and old assemblies are the same.  A few more bundles start in the newer servers but I think these are errors similar to the inclusion of ssh in the minimal assemblies.  It would be great if someone more familiar with karaf history than I would investigate the differences and advise about what to do.  Basically I assume that all the bundles in system should be started, so the choices are to remove the extra bundles from system or to decide that indeed their presence is correct.

I'm not sure what to do with the demos.  It's easy enough to write a kar file that will unpack the demo content so it will look just as it does today, but what's there strikes me as sort of horrible.  I don't really expect a server image to include maven projects that I can build to add functionality.  I think that it would be a lot more appropriate to have a customization maven archetype that will generate a full-featured customization project, and one or two demo features that can install prebuilt demo applications.

I'm thinking about how best to install legal files into assemblies and hope to have a suggestion in the next few days.

The current apache-karaf builds some kind of source distribution.  I haven't looked into exactly what it is but suggest that the source distros produced by the apache release profile are sufficient.

Related to this suggestion I think it would be great if some of the other projects that use karaf such as servicemix, activemq, directory (?) tried out the new packagings to build custom server assemblies.  I will try to write up some documentation and maven archetypes for this in the next few days.

thoughts?

thanks
david jencks

Re: Remove old apache-karaf assembly in favor of apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full?

[Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com>]

I'm with Andreas here, another docuemtation besides the wiki and
scalate just turns into more problems,
not necessarily but last time the scalate documentation did :)

so +1 for integrating this special maven-plugin documentation into the
standard documentation, maybe some of
our scalate experts can do that :)

Additionally we need some migration documentation for the people who
already do the assembly stuff.

regards, Achim

2011/4/11 Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com>:
> I expect that we can publish it similar to our scalate site, though
> I'm not sure if we really want to introduce another technology. While
> I see the reason that mvn site is especially useful for documenting
> mvn plugins I'm not sure if we want to include another way of
> documenting AND another problem during release. Maybe we can include
> the site output into the scalate output?
>
> Kind regards,
> Andreas
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I didn't see where a smx assembly was being built so I spent a few minutes on plugin documentation.  I think running mvn site in tooling/karaf-maven-plugin produces a reasonably informative result.
>>
>> Are we publishing maven generated sites anywhere?  I'm not always sure about regular projects' maven sites but the generated plugin documentation is usually pretty useful and I think that people expect to find it.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Apr 9, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>>
>>> my comments in-line :)
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think I left out a step :-) and I'm not sure how people are currently packaging the extra files needed for a custom server.
>>>
>>> the way I used to do it was to configure a maven project for assembly
>>> and I configured all my extra bundles as dependency in this
>>> project, using the assembly plug-in for maven. First step was to extract
>>> the standard distro of Karaf, add some extra bundles
>>> add some extra config files, changed some config files skipped some
>>> config files of the original assembly.
>>>
>>>> I'm thinking that you would set up a kar project with all the extra files, configuration, etc as well as listing or including the bundles, so you can install e.g. servicemix on any karaf instance as a kar, and then also set up a karaf-assembly project that produces a custom distribution based on that kar as well as everything else you want in the server.
>>>
>>> This is a nice idea, and this way I probably don't need to edit the
>>> startup.properties anymore. I kind of like that.
>>> As I already stated we need some very good documentation to get our
>>> users into this boat :)
>>>
>>>> The framework and full kars I added to assemblies/features combined with the new assemblies are one example of this technique, but maybe I should try it out on e.g. servicemix also as an example.  Is it clear where the servicemix assembly is?
>>>
>>> For this you have to ask JB, he did the last release for ServiceMix.
>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 9, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume you are talking about the instructions for custom distributions here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://karaf.apache.org/manual/2.2.0/developers-guide/custom-distribution.html
>>>>>>
>>>>> yes, exactly
>>>>>
>>>>>> The process described here is hideously complex compared to what I'm proposing.  To keep it available we need to keep the add-features-to-repo mojo.  If, after comparing equivalent old and new style karaf assembly projects, someone wants to keep it, fine.
>>>>> well, it might be complex but most persons I know a very aware of how to
>>>>> use the assembly plugin of maven on building a
>>>>> nice little distribution :)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Conceptually the main difference I see between old and new styles is that the old style relies on unpacking an existing distro whereas the new style currently asks you to copy the list of features and kars that were assembled into the existing distro.  I think I can set up an "uber feature" for each distro so there's only one feature going in, so in either style there would be exactly one artifact involved, but it might be a good idea to add an "unpack existing distro" mojo so the karaf-assembly packaging can also unpack something for you.  In this case I think the new style would be equivalent to the old style except you'd list the features to add as maven dependencies instead of configuring them in the k-m-p plugin configuration, and you' leave out 99% of the configuration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you tried setting up a project to do a new-style assembly?
>>>>> No I didn't yet, but will give it a try. I just realized this big change.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> regards, Achim
>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 9, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all my comments in-line
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> regards, Achim
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Karaf is complete atomic and standalone OSGi container.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It should run by itself (and it's still the case).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> full ack, for just using camel you don't need anything else. This just
>>>>>>> as a quick description on how I am using Karaf very often.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it's more logic for the projects to be build on top. Anyway,
>>>>>>>> I'm not against this new change as it could get life easy in the project.
>>>>>>>> David, did you launch a thread in the past on this mailing list, or
>>>>>>>> updated a wiki page describing this new philosophy ? Sorry if the
>>>>>>>> question is stupid, maybe I missed some messages, but I don't remember
>>>>>>>> lot of discussion on these changes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did see some mail-threads touching parts of this, but somehow I was
>>>>>>> missing the big picture beforehand.
>>>>>>> IMHO for me this move was quite fast and a better discussion could have
>>>>>>> been helpful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me make some try to have a better understanding. Anyway, I didn't
>>>>>>>> see any change on the manual around the "Karaf Custom Distribution"
>>>>>>>> section. It should be introduce and described in the manual.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We surely need some very good documentation on this move, because we
>>>>>>> already have a description for how to build a custom distributions and
>>>>>>> people are already using it to make their own custom distribution. I
>>>>>>> used to do this at my former company
>>>>>>> and I'm sure the guys doing it now will get kind of upset if they have
>>>>>>> to change a lot on how to make a custom distribution.
>>>>>>> Just my 2 cent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will do that regarding my tests on ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/08/2011 09:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest that it would be more appropriate for other
>>>>>>>>> projects such as servicemix to have one or more karaf-assembly
>>>>>>>>> packaging projects similar to the apache-karaf-framework or
>>>>>>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies but including exactly the content
>>>>>>>>> wanted, rather than starting with a distributed karaf server and
>>>>>>>>> modifying it.  That was more or less the point of introcuding the
>>>>>>>>> karaf-assembly packaging.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is a pretty dramatic change in philosophy of what karaf is and
>>>>>>>>> how to use it, but I think it is easier to use and a lot more
>>>>>>>>> flexible.  I think of karaf more as a way to construct servers rather
>>>>>>>>> than as a particular set of content in a server.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Before, I will check the impact on some other projects, especially
>>>>>>>>>> around the groupId/artifactId used.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We made a mistake by changing the groupId/artifactId of features, I
>>>>>>>>>> don't wanna to have the same issue with the distribution assemblies.
>>>>>>>>>> Projects like ServiceMix use the Karaf distribution in their own
>>>>>>>>>> assembly. At least, we need to document the new Mojo, the new
>>>>>>>>>> distro, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm gonna make some tests with ServiceMix and I will keep you posted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/08/2011 07:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest that we remove the old assemblies/apache-karaf
>>>>>>>>>>> and use instead the assemblies/apache-karaf-minimal and
>>>>>>>>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies constructed using the new mojos.  I
>>>>>>>>>>> think we can also remove a lot of mojos from the karaf-maven-plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With the exception of some configuration files, legal files, the
>>>>>>>>>>> demo files, and the inclusion of o.a.k.shell.ssh in the old minimal
>>>>>>>>>>> assembly by error, the contents of the corresponding new and old
>>>>>>>>>>> assemblies are the same.  A few more bundles start in the newer
>>>>>>>>>>> servers but I think these are errors similar to the inclusion of
>>>>>>>>>>> ssh in the minimal assemblies.  It would be great if someone more
>>>>>>>>>>> familiar with karaf history than I would investigate the
>>>>>>>>>>> differences and advise about what to do.  Basically I assume that
>>>>>>>>>>> all the bundles in system should be started, so the choices are to
>>>>>>>>>>> remove the extra bundles from system or to decide that indeed their
>>>>>>>>>>> presence is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what to do with the demos.  It's easy enough to write
>>>>>>>>>>> a kar file that will unpack the demo content so it will look just
>>>>>>>>>>> as it does today, but what's there strikes me as sort of horrible.
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really expect a server image to include maven projects that
>>>>>>>>>>> I can build to add functionality.  I think that it would be a lot
>>>>>>>>>>> more appropriate to have a customization maven archetype that will
>>>>>>>>>>> generate a full-featured customization project, and one or two demo
>>>>>>>>>>> features that can install prebuilt demo applications.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking about how best to install legal files into assemblies
>>>>>>>>>>> and hope to have a suggestion in the next few days.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The current apache-karaf builds some kind of source distribution.
>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't looked into exactly what it is but suggest that the
>>>>>>>>>>> source distros produced by the apache release profile are sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Related to this suggestion I think it would be great if some of the
>>>>>>>>>>> other projects that use karaf such as servicemix, activemq,
>>>>>>>>>>> directory (?) tried out the new packagings to build custom server
>>>>>>>>>>> assemblies.  I will try to write up some documentation and maven
>>>>>>>>>>> archetypes for this in the next few days.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: Remove old apache-karaf assembly in favor of apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full?

[Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com>]

I expect that we can publish it similar to our scalate site, though
I'm not sure if we really want to introduce another technology. While
I see the reason that mvn site is especially useful for documenting
mvn plugins I'm not sure if we want to include another way of
documenting AND another problem during release. Maybe we can include
the site output into the scalate output?

Kind regards,
Andreas

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I didn't see where a smx assembly was being built so I spent a few minutes on plugin documentation.  I think running mvn site in tooling/karaf-maven-plugin produces a reasonably informative result.
>
> Are we publishing maven generated sites anywhere?  I'm not always sure about regular projects' maven sites but the generated plugin documentation is usually pretty useful and I think that people expect to find it.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Apr 9, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>
>> my comments in-line :)
>>
>>
>>> I think I left out a step :-) and I'm not sure how people are currently packaging the extra files needed for a custom server.
>>
>> the way I used to do it was to configure a maven project for assembly
>> and I configured all my extra bundles as dependency in this
>> project, using the assembly plug-in for maven. First step was to extract
>> the standard distro of Karaf, add some extra bundles
>> add some extra config files, changed some config files skipped some
>> config files of the original assembly.
>>
>>> I'm thinking that you would set up a kar project with all the extra files, configuration, etc as well as listing or including the bundles, so you can install e.g. servicemix on any karaf instance as a kar, and then also set up a karaf-assembly project that produces a custom distribution based on that kar as well as everything else you want in the server.
>>
>> This is a nice idea, and this way I probably don't need to edit the
>> startup.properties anymore. I kind of like that.
>> As I already stated we need some very good documentation to get our
>> users into this boat :)
>>
>>> The framework and full kars I added to assemblies/features combined with the new assemblies are one example of this technique, but maybe I should try it out on e.g. servicemix also as an example.  Is it clear where the servicemix assembly is?
>>
>> For this you have to ask JB, he did the last release for ServiceMix.
>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>> On Apr 9, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I assume you are talking about the instructions for custom distributions here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://karaf.apache.org/manual/2.2.0/developers-guide/custom-distribution.html
>>>>>
>>>> yes, exactly
>>>>
>>>>> The process described here is hideously complex compared to what I'm proposing.  To keep it available we need to keep the add-features-to-repo mojo.  If, after comparing equivalent old and new style karaf assembly projects, someone wants to keep it, fine.
>>>> well, it might be complex but most persons I know a very aware of how to
>>>> use the assembly plugin of maven on building a
>>>> nice little distribution :)
>>>>
>>>>> Conceptually the main difference I see between old and new styles is that the old style relies on unpacking an existing distro whereas the new style currently asks you to copy the list of features and kars that were assembled into the existing distro.  I think I can set up an "uber feature" for each distro so there's only one feature going in, so in either style there would be exactly one artifact involved, but it might be a good idea to add an "unpack existing distro" mojo so the karaf-assembly packaging can also unpack something for you.  In this case I think the new style would be equivalent to the old style except you'd list the features to add as maven dependencies instead of configuring them in the k-m-p plugin configuration, and you' leave out 99% of the configuration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you tried setting up a project to do a new-style assembly?
>>>> No I didn't yet, but will give it a try. I just realized this big change.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> regards, Achim
>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 9, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all my comments in-line
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards, Achim
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Karaf is complete atomic and standalone OSGi container.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It should run by itself (and it's still the case).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> full ack, for just using camel you don't need anything else. This just
>>>>>> as a quick description on how I am using Karaf very often.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it's more logic for the projects to be build on top. Anyway,
>>>>>>> I'm not against this new change as it could get life easy in the project.
>>>>>>> David, did you launch a thread in the past on this mailing list, or
>>>>>>> updated a wiki page describing this new philosophy ? Sorry if the
>>>>>>> question is stupid, maybe I missed some messages, but I don't remember
>>>>>>> lot of discussion on these changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did see some mail-threads touching parts of this, but somehow I was
>>>>>> missing the big picture beforehand.
>>>>>> IMHO for me this move was quite fast and a better discussion could have
>>>>>> been helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me make some try to have a better understanding. Anyway, I didn't
>>>>>>> see any change on the manual around the "Karaf Custom Distribution"
>>>>>>> section. It should be introduce and described in the manual.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> We surely need some very good documentation on this move, because we
>>>>>> already have a description for how to build a custom distributions and
>>>>>> people are already using it to make their own custom distribution. I
>>>>>> used to do this at my former company
>>>>>> and I'm sure the guys doing it now will get kind of upset if they have
>>>>>> to change a lot on how to make a custom distribution.
>>>>>> Just my 2 cent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will do that regarding my tests on ServiceMix.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04/08/2011 09:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest that it would be more appropriate for other
>>>>>>>> projects such as servicemix to have one or more karaf-assembly
>>>>>>>> packaging projects similar to the apache-karaf-framework or
>>>>>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies but including exactly the content
>>>>>>>> wanted, rather than starting with a distributed karaf server and
>>>>>>>> modifying it.  That was more or less the point of introcuding the
>>>>>>>> karaf-assembly packaging.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a pretty dramatic change in philosophy of what karaf is and
>>>>>>>> how to use it, but I think it is easier to use and a lot more
>>>>>>>> flexible.  I think of karaf more as a way to construct servers rather
>>>>>>>> than as a particular set of content in a server.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Before, I will check the impact on some other projects, especially
>>>>>>>>> around the groupId/artifactId used.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We made a mistake by changing the groupId/artifactId of features, I
>>>>>>>>> don't wanna to have the same issue with the distribution assemblies.
>>>>>>>>> Projects like ServiceMix use the Karaf distribution in their own
>>>>>>>>> assembly. At least, we need to document the new Mojo, the new
>>>>>>>>> distro, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm gonna make some tests with ServiceMix and I will keep you posted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 04/08/2011 07:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest that we remove the old assemblies/apache-karaf
>>>>>>>>>> and use instead the assemblies/apache-karaf-minimal and
>>>>>>>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies constructed using the new mojos.  I
>>>>>>>>>> think we can also remove a lot of mojos from the karaf-maven-plugin.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With the exception of some configuration files, legal files, the
>>>>>>>>>> demo files, and the inclusion of o.a.k.shell.ssh in the old minimal
>>>>>>>>>> assembly by error, the contents of the corresponding new and old
>>>>>>>>>> assemblies are the same.  A few more bundles start in the newer
>>>>>>>>>> servers but I think these are errors similar to the inclusion of
>>>>>>>>>> ssh in the minimal assemblies.  It would be great if someone more
>>>>>>>>>> familiar with karaf history than I would investigate the
>>>>>>>>>> differences and advise about what to do.  Basically I assume that
>>>>>>>>>> all the bundles in system should be started, so the choices are to
>>>>>>>>>> remove the extra bundles from system or to decide that indeed their
>>>>>>>>>> presence is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what to do with the demos.  It's easy enough to write
>>>>>>>>>> a kar file that will unpack the demo content so it will look just
>>>>>>>>>> as it does today, but what's there strikes me as sort of horrible.
>>>>>>>>>> I don't really expect a server image to include maven projects that
>>>>>>>>>> I can build to add functionality.  I think that it would be a lot
>>>>>>>>>> more appropriate to have a customization maven archetype that will
>>>>>>>>>> generate a full-featured customization project, and one or two demo
>>>>>>>>>> features that can install prebuilt demo applications.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking about how best to install legal files into assemblies
>>>>>>>>>> and hope to have a suggestion in the next few days.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The current apache-karaf builds some kind of source distribution.
>>>>>>>>>> I haven't looked into exactly what it is but suggest that the
>>>>>>>>>> source distros produced by the apache release profile are sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Related to this suggestion I think it would be great if some of the
>>>>>>>>>> other projects that use karaf such as servicemix, activemq,
>>>>>>>>>> directory (?) tried out the new packagings to build custom server
>>>>>>>>>> assemblies.  I will try to write up some documentation and maven
>>>>>>>>>> archetypes for this in the next few days.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>
>

Re: Remove old apache-karaf assembly in favor of apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full?

[David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>]

I also added a simple karaf-feature-archetype. 

david jencks

On Apr 10, 2011, at 2:38 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> I didn't see where a smx assembly was being built so I spent a few minutes on plugin documentation.  I think running mvn site in tooling/karaf-maven-plugin produces a reasonably informative result.
> 
> Are we publishing maven generated sites anywhere?  I'm not always sure about regular projects' maven sites but the generated plugin documentation is usually pretty useful and I think that people expect to find it.
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> On Apr 9, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
> 
>> my comments in-line :)
>> 
>> 
>>> I think I left out a step :-) and I'm not sure how people are currently packaging the extra files needed for a custom server.
>> 
>> the way I used to do it was to configure a maven project for assembly
>> and I configured all my extra bundles as dependency in this
>> project, using the assembly plug-in for maven. First step was to extract
>> the standard distro of Karaf, add some extra bundles
>> add some extra config files, changed some config files skipped some
>> config files of the original assembly.
>> 
>>> I'm thinking that you would set up a kar project with all the extra files, configuration, etc as well as listing or including the bundles, so you can install e.g. servicemix on any karaf instance as a kar, and then also set up a karaf-assembly project that produces a custom distribution based on that kar as well as everything else you want in the server.
>> 
>> This is a nice idea, and this way I probably don't need to edit the
>> startup.properties anymore. I kind of like that.
>> As I already stated we need some very good documentation to get our
>> users into this boat :)
>> 
>>> The framework and full kars I added to assemblies/features combined with the new assemblies are one example of this technique, but maybe I should try it out on e.g. servicemix also as an example.  Is it clear where the servicemix assembly is?
>> 
>> For this you have to ask JB, he did the last release for ServiceMix.
>> 
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>> 
>>> On Apr 9, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi David,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> I assume you are talking about the instructions for custom distributions here:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://karaf.apache.org/manual/2.2.0/developers-guide/custom-distribution.html
>>>>> 
>>>> yes, exactly
>>>> 
>>>>> The process described here is hideously complex compared to what I'm proposing.  To keep it available we need to keep the add-features-to-repo mojo.  If, after comparing equivalent old and new style karaf assembly projects, someone wants to keep it, fine.
>>>> well, it might be complex but most persons I know a very aware of how to
>>>> use the assembly plugin of maven on building a
>>>> nice little distribution :)
>>>> 
>>>>> Conceptually the main difference I see between old and new styles is that the old style relies on unpacking an existing distro whereas the new style currently asks you to copy the list of features and kars that were assembled into the existing distro.  I think I can set up an "uber feature" for each distro so there's only one feature going in, so in either style there would be exactly one artifact involved, but it might be a good idea to add an "unpack existing distro" mojo so the karaf-assembly packaging can also unpack something for you.  In this case I think the new style would be equivalent to the old style except you'd list the features to add as maven dependencies instead of configuring them in the k-m-p plugin configuration, and you' leave out 99% of the configuration.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Have you tried setting up a project to do a new-style assembly?  
>>>> No I didn't yet, but will give it a try. I just realized this big change.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> regards, Achim
>>>> 
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 9, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi all my comments in-line
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> regards, Achim
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Karaf is complete atomic and standalone OSGi container.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It should run by itself (and it's still the case).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> full ack, for just using camel you don't need anything else. This just
>>>>>> as a quick description on how I am using Karaf very often.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think it's more logic for the projects to be build on top. Anyway,
>>>>>>> I'm not against this new change as it could get life easy in the project.
>>>>>>> David, did you launch a thread in the past on this mailing list, or
>>>>>>> updated a wiki page describing this new philosophy ? Sorry if the
>>>>>>> question is stupid, maybe I missed some messages, but I don't remember
>>>>>>> lot of discussion on these changes.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I did see some mail-threads touching parts of this, but somehow I was
>>>>>> missing the big picture beforehand.
>>>>>> IMHO for me this move was quite fast and a better discussion could have
>>>>>> been helpful.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Let me make some try to have a better understanding. Anyway, I didn't
>>>>>>> see any change on the manual around the "Karaf Custom Distribution"
>>>>>>> section. It should be introduce and described in the manual.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We surely need some very good documentation on this move, because we
>>>>>> already have a description for how to build a custom distributions and
>>>>>> people are already using it to make their own custom distribution. I
>>>>>> used to do this at my former company
>>>>>> and I'm sure the guys doing it now will get kind of upset if they have
>>>>>> to change a lot on how to make a custom distribution.
>>>>>> Just my 2 cent.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I will do that regarding my tests on ServiceMix.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 04/08/2011 09:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest that it would be more appropriate for other
>>>>>>>> projects such as servicemix to have one or more karaf-assembly
>>>>>>>> packaging projects similar to the apache-karaf-framework or
>>>>>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies but including exactly the content
>>>>>>>> wanted, rather than starting with a distributed karaf server and
>>>>>>>> modifying it.  That was more or less the point of introcuding the
>>>>>>>> karaf-assembly packaging.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This is a pretty dramatic change in philosophy of what karaf is and
>>>>>>>> how to use it, but I think it is easier to use and a lot more
>>>>>>>> flexible.  I think of karaf more as a way to construct servers rather
>>>>>>>> than as a particular set of content in a server.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Before, I will check the impact on some other projects, especially
>>>>>>>>> around the groupId/artifactId used.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> We made a mistake by changing the groupId/artifactId of features, I
>>>>>>>>> don't wanna to have the same issue with the distribution assemblies.
>>>>>>>>> Projects like ServiceMix use the Karaf distribution in their own
>>>>>>>>> assembly. At least, we need to document the new Mojo, the new
>>>>>>>>> distro, etc.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'm gonna make some tests with ServiceMix and I will keep you posted.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 04/08/2011 07:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest that we remove the old assemblies/apache-karaf
>>>>>>>>>> and use instead the assemblies/apache-karaf-minimal and
>>>>>>>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies constructed using the new mojos.  I
>>>>>>>>>> think we can also remove a lot of mojos from the karaf-maven-plugin.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> With the exception of some configuration files, legal files, the
>>>>>>>>>> demo files, and the inclusion of o.a.k.shell.ssh in the old minimal
>>>>>>>>>> assembly by error, the contents of the corresponding new and old
>>>>>>>>>> assemblies are the same.  A few more bundles start in the newer
>>>>>>>>>> servers but I think these are errors similar to the inclusion of
>>>>>>>>>> ssh in the minimal assemblies.  It would be great if someone more
>>>>>>>>>> familiar with karaf history than I would investigate the
>>>>>>>>>> differences and advise about what to do.  Basically I assume that
>>>>>>>>>> all the bundles in system should be started, so the choices are to
>>>>>>>>>> remove the extra bundles from system or to decide that indeed their
>>>>>>>>>> presence is correct.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what to do with the demos.  It's easy enough to write
>>>>>>>>>> a kar file that will unpack the demo content so it will look just
>>>>>>>>>> as it does today, but what's there strikes me as sort of horrible. 
>>>>>>>>>> I don't really expect a server image to include maven projects that
>>>>>>>>>> I can build to add functionality.  I think that it would be a lot
>>>>>>>>>> more appropriate to have a customization maven archetype that will
>>>>>>>>>> generate a full-featured customization project, and one or two demo
>>>>>>>>>> features that can install prebuilt demo applications.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking about how best to install legal files into assemblies
>>>>>>>>>> and hope to have a suggestion in the next few days.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The current apache-karaf builds some kind of source distribution. 
>>>>>>>>>> I haven't looked into exactly what it is but suggest that the
>>>>>>>>>> source distros produced by the apache release profile are sufficient.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Related to this suggestion I think it would be great if some of the
>>>>>>>>>> other projects that use karaf such as servicemix, activemq,
>>>>>>>>>> directory (?) tried out the new packagings to build custom server
>>>>>>>>>> assemblies.  I will try to write up some documentation and maven
>>>>>>>>>> archetypes for this in the next few days.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>> 
> 

Re: Remove old apache-karaf assembly in favor of apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full?

[David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>]

I didn't see where a smx assembly was being built so I spent a few minutes on plugin documentation.  I think running mvn site in tooling/karaf-maven-plugin produces a reasonably informative result.

Are we publishing maven generated sites anywhere?  I'm not always sure about regular projects' maven sites but the generated plugin documentation is usually pretty useful and I think that people expect to find it.

thanks
david jencks

On Apr 9, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:

> my comments in-line :)
> 
> 
>> I think I left out a step :-) and I'm not sure how people are currently packaging the extra files needed for a custom server.
> 
> the way I used to do it was to configure a maven project for assembly
> and I configured all my extra bundles as dependency in this
> project, using the assembly plug-in for maven. First step was to extract
> the standard distro of Karaf, add some extra bundles
> add some extra config files, changed some config files skipped some
> config files of the original assembly.
> 
>> I'm thinking that you would set up a kar project with all the extra files, configuration, etc as well as listing or including the bundles, so you can install e.g. servicemix on any karaf instance as a kar, and then also set up a karaf-assembly project that produces a custom distribution based on that kar as well as everything else you want in the server.
> 
> This is a nice idea, and this way I probably don't need to edit the
> startup.properties anymore. I kind of like that.
> As I already stated we need some very good documentation to get our
> users into this boat :)
> 
>> The framework and full kars I added to assemblies/features combined with the new assemblies are one example of this technique, but maybe I should try it out on e.g. servicemix also as an example.  Is it clear where the servicemix assembly is?
> 
> For this you have to ask JB, he did the last release for ServiceMix.
> 
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> 
>> On Apr 9, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi David,
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> I assume you are talking about the instructions for custom distributions here:
>>>> 
>>>> http://karaf.apache.org/manual/2.2.0/developers-guide/custom-distribution.html
>>>> 
>>> yes, exactly
>>> 
>>>> The process described here is hideously complex compared to what I'm proposing.  To keep it available we need to keep the add-features-to-repo mojo.  If, after comparing equivalent old and new style karaf assembly projects, someone wants to keep it, fine.
>>> well, it might be complex but most persons I know a very aware of how to
>>> use the assembly plugin of maven on building a
>>> nice little distribution :)
>>> 
>>>> Conceptually the main difference I see between old and new styles is that the old style relies on unpacking an existing distro whereas the new style currently asks you to copy the list of features and kars that were assembled into the existing distro.  I think I can set up an "uber feature" for each distro so there's only one feature going in, so in either style there would be exactly one artifact involved, but it might be a good idea to add an "unpack existing distro" mojo so the karaf-assembly packaging can also unpack something for you.  In this case I think the new style would be equivalent to the old style except you'd list the features to add as maven dependencies instead of configuring them in the k-m-p plugin configuration, and you' leave out 99% of the configuration.
>>>> 
>>>> Have you tried setting up a project to do a new-style assembly?  
>>> No I didn't yet, but will give it a try. I just realized this big change.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> regards, Achim
>>> 
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Apr 9, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi all my comments in-line
>>>>> 
>>>>> regards, Achim
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Karaf is complete atomic and standalone OSGi container.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It should run by itself (and it's still the case).
>>>>>> 
>>>>> full ack, for just using camel you don't need anything else. This just
>>>>> as a quick description on how I am using Karaf very often.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think it's more logic for the projects to be build on top. Anyway,
>>>>>> I'm not against this new change as it could get life easy in the project.
>>>>>> David, did you launch a thread in the past on this mailing list, or
>>>>>> updated a wiki page describing this new philosophy ? Sorry if the
>>>>>> question is stupid, maybe I missed some messages, but I don't remember
>>>>>> lot of discussion on these changes.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> I did see some mail-threads touching parts of this, but somehow I was
>>>>> missing the big picture beforehand.
>>>>> IMHO for me this move was quite fast and a better discussion could have
>>>>> been helpful.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Let me make some try to have a better understanding. Anyway, I didn't
>>>>>> see any change on the manual around the "Karaf Custom Distribution"
>>>>>> section. It should be introduce and described in the manual.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> We surely need some very good documentation on this move, because we
>>>>> already have a description for how to build a custom distributions and
>>>>> people are already using it to make their own custom distribution. I
>>>>> used to do this at my former company
>>>>> and I'm sure the guys doing it now will get kind of upset if they have
>>>>> to change a lot on how to make a custom distribution.
>>>>> Just my 2 cent.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I will do that regarding my tests on ServiceMix.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> JB
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 04/08/2011 09:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest that it would be more appropriate for other
>>>>>>> projects such as servicemix to have one or more karaf-assembly
>>>>>>> packaging projects similar to the apache-karaf-framework or
>>>>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies but including exactly the content
>>>>>>> wanted, rather than starting with a distributed karaf server and
>>>>>>> modifying it.  That was more or less the point of introcuding the
>>>>>>> karaf-assembly packaging.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This is a pretty dramatic change in philosophy of what karaf is and
>>>>>>> how to use it, but I think it is easier to use and a lot more
>>>>>>> flexible.  I think of karaf more as a way to construct servers rather
>>>>>>> than as a particular set of content in a server.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Before, I will check the impact on some other projects, especially
>>>>>>>> around the groupId/artifactId used.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We made a mistake by changing the groupId/artifactId of features, I
>>>>>>>> don't wanna to have the same issue with the distribution assemblies.
>>>>>>>> Projects like ServiceMix use the Karaf distribution in their own
>>>>>>>> assembly. At least, we need to document the new Mojo, the new
>>>>>>>> distro, etc.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'm gonna make some tests with ServiceMix and I will keep you posted.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 04/08/2011 07:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest that we remove the old assemblies/apache-karaf
>>>>>>>>> and use instead the assemblies/apache-karaf-minimal and
>>>>>>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies constructed using the new mojos.  I
>>>>>>>>> think we can also remove a lot of mojos from the karaf-maven-plugin.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> With the exception of some configuration files, legal files, the
>>>>>>>>> demo files, and the inclusion of o.a.k.shell.ssh in the old minimal
>>>>>>>>> assembly by error, the contents of the corresponding new and old
>>>>>>>>> assemblies are the same.  A few more bundles start in the newer
>>>>>>>>> servers but I think these are errors similar to the inclusion of
>>>>>>>>> ssh in the minimal assemblies.  It would be great if someone more
>>>>>>>>> familiar with karaf history than I would investigate the
>>>>>>>>> differences and advise about what to do.  Basically I assume that
>>>>>>>>> all the bundles in system should be started, so the choices are to
>>>>>>>>> remove the extra bundles from system or to decide that indeed their
>>>>>>>>> presence is correct.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what to do with the demos.  It's easy enough to write
>>>>>>>>> a kar file that will unpack the demo content so it will look just
>>>>>>>>> as it does today, but what's there strikes me as sort of horrible. 
>>>>>>>>> I don't really expect a server image to include maven projects that
>>>>>>>>> I can build to add functionality.  I think that it would be a lot
>>>>>>>>> more appropriate to have a customization maven archetype that will
>>>>>>>>> generate a full-featured customization project, and one or two demo
>>>>>>>>> features that can install prebuilt demo applications.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'm thinking about how best to install legal files into assemblies
>>>>>>>>> and hope to have a suggestion in the next few days.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The current apache-karaf builds some kind of source distribution. 
>>>>>>>>> I haven't looked into exactly what it is but suggest that the
>>>>>>>>> source distros produced by the apache release profile are sufficient.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Related to this suggestion I think it would be great if some of the
>>>>>>>>> other projects that use karaf such as servicemix, activemq,
>>>>>>>>> directory (?) tried out the new packagings to build custom server
>>>>>>>>> assemblies.  I will try to write up some documentation and maven
>>>>>>>>> archetypes for this in the next few days.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
> 

Re: Remove old apache-karaf assembly in favor of apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full?

[Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com>]

my comments in-line :)


> I think I left out a step :-) and I'm not sure how people are currently packaging the extra files needed for a custom server.

the way I used to do it was to configure a maven project for assembly
and I configured all my extra bundles as dependency in this
project, using the assembly plug-in for maven. First step was to extract
the standard distro of Karaf, add some extra bundles
add some extra config files, changed some config files skipped some
config files of the original assembly.

> I'm thinking that you would set up a kar project with all the extra files, configuration, etc as well as listing or including the bundles, so you can install e.g. servicemix on any karaf instance as a kar, and then also set up a karaf-assembly project that produces a custom distribution based on that kar as well as everything else you want in the server.

This is a nice idea, and this way I probably don't need to edit the
startup.properties anymore. I kind of like that.
As I already stated we need some very good documentation to get our
users into this boat :)

> The framework and full kars I added to assemblies/features combined with the new assemblies are one example of this technique, but maybe I should try it out on e.g. servicemix also as an example.  Is it clear where the servicemix assembly is?

For this you have to ask JB, he did the last release for ServiceMix.

> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Apr 9, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>>
>>> I assume you are talking about the instructions for custom distributions here:
>>>
>>> http://karaf.apache.org/manual/2.2.0/developers-guide/custom-distribution.html
>>>
>> yes, exactly
>>
>>> The process described here is hideously complex compared to what I'm proposing.  To keep it available we need to keep the add-features-to-repo mojo.  If, after comparing equivalent old and new style karaf assembly projects, someone wants to keep it, fine.
>> well, it might be complex but most persons I know a very aware of how to
>> use the assembly plugin of maven on building a
>> nice little distribution :)
>>
>>> Conceptually the main difference I see between old and new styles is that the old style relies on unpacking an existing distro whereas the new style currently asks you to copy the list of features and kars that were assembled into the existing distro.  I think I can set up an "uber feature" for each distro so there's only one feature going in, so in either style there would be exactly one artifact involved, but it might be a good idea to add an "unpack existing distro" mojo so the karaf-assembly packaging can also unpack something for you.  In this case I think the new style would be equivalent to the old style except you'd list the features to add as maven dependencies instead of configuring them in the k-m-p plugin configuration, and you' leave out 99% of the configuration.
>>>
>>> Have you tried setting up a project to do a new-style assembly?  
>> No I didn't yet, but will give it a try. I just realized this big change.
>>
>>
>> regards, Achim
>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 9, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all my comments in-line
>>>>
>>>> regards, Achim
>>>>
>>>>> Karaf is complete atomic and standalone OSGi container.
>>>>>
>>>>> It should run by itself (and it's still the case).
>>>>>
>>>> full ack, for just using camel you don't need anything else. This just
>>>> as a quick description on how I am using Karaf very often.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think it's more logic for the projects to be build on top. Anyway,
>>>>> I'm not against this new change as it could get life easy in the project.
>>>>> David, did you launch a thread in the past on this mailing list, or
>>>>> updated a wiki page describing this new philosophy ? Sorry if the
>>>>> question is stupid, maybe I missed some messages, but I don't remember
>>>>> lot of discussion on these changes.
>>>>>
>>>> I did see some mail-threads touching parts of this, but somehow I was
>>>> missing the big picture beforehand.
>>>> IMHO for me this move was quite fast and a better discussion could have
>>>> been helpful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Let me make some try to have a better understanding. Anyway, I didn't
>>>>> see any change on the manual around the "Karaf Custom Distribution"
>>>>> section. It should be introduce and described in the manual.
>>>>>
>>>> We surely need some very good documentation on this move, because we
>>>> already have a description for how to build a custom distributions and
>>>> people are already using it to make their own custom distribution. I
>>>> used to do this at my former company
>>>> and I'm sure the guys doing it now will get kind of upset if they have
>>>> to change a lot on how to make a custom distribution.
>>>> Just my 2 cent.
>>>>
>>>>> I will do that regarding my tests on ServiceMix.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> JB
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/08/2011 09:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>> I'd like to suggest that it would be more appropriate for other
>>>>>> projects such as servicemix to have one or more karaf-assembly
>>>>>> packaging projects similar to the apache-karaf-framework or
>>>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies but including exactly the content
>>>>>> wanted, rather than starting with a distributed karaf server and
>>>>>> modifying it.  That was more or less the point of introcuding the
>>>>>> karaf-assembly packaging.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a pretty dramatic change in philosophy of what karaf is and
>>>>>> how to use it, but I think it is easier to use and a lot more
>>>>>> flexible.  I think of karaf more as a way to construct servers rather
>>>>>> than as a particular set of content in a server.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before, I will check the impact on some other projects, especially
>>>>>>> around the groupId/artifactId used.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We made a mistake by changing the groupId/artifactId of features, I
>>>>>>> don't wanna to have the same issue with the distribution assemblies.
>>>>>>> Projects like ServiceMix use the Karaf distribution in their own
>>>>>>> assembly. At least, we need to document the new Mojo, the new
>>>>>>> distro, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm gonna make some tests with ServiceMix and I will keep you posted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04/08/2011 07:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest that we remove the old assemblies/apache-karaf
>>>>>>>> and use instead the assemblies/apache-karaf-minimal and
>>>>>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies constructed using the new mojos.  I
>>>>>>>> think we can also remove a lot of mojos from the karaf-maven-plugin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With the exception of some configuration files, legal files, the
>>>>>>>> demo files, and the inclusion of o.a.k.shell.ssh in the old minimal
>>>>>>>> assembly by error, the contents of the corresponding new and old
>>>>>>>> assemblies are the same.  A few more bundles start in the newer
>>>>>>>> servers but I think these are errors similar to the inclusion of
>>>>>>>> ssh in the minimal assemblies.  It would be great if someone more
>>>>>>>> familiar with karaf history than I would investigate the
>>>>>>>> differences and advise about what to do.  Basically I assume that
>>>>>>>> all the bundles in system should be started, so the choices are to
>>>>>>>> remove the extra bundles from system or to decide that indeed their
>>>>>>>> presence is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what to do with the demos.  It's easy enough to write
>>>>>>>> a kar file that will unpack the demo content so it will look just
>>>>>>>> as it does today, but what's there strikes me as sort of horrible. 
>>>>>>>> I don't really expect a server image to include maven projects that
>>>>>>>> I can build to add functionality.  I think that it would be a lot
>>>>>>>> more appropriate to have a customization maven archetype that will
>>>>>>>> generate a full-featured customization project, and one or two demo
>>>>>>>> features that can install prebuilt demo applications.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm thinking about how best to install legal files into assemblies
>>>>>>>> and hope to have a suggestion in the next few days.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The current apache-karaf builds some kind of source distribution. 
>>>>>>>> I haven't looked into exactly what it is but suggest that the
>>>>>>>> source distros produced by the apache release profile are sufficient.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Related to this suggestion I think it would be great if some of the
>>>>>>>> other projects that use karaf such as servicemix, activemq,
>>>>>>>> directory (?) tried out the new packagings to build custom server
>>>>>>>> assemblies.  I will try to write up some documentation and maven
>>>>>>>> archetypes for this in the next few days.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

Re: Remove old apache-karaf assembly in favor of apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full?

[David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>]

I think I left out a step :-) and I'm not sure how people are currently packaging the extra files needed for a custom server.

I'm thinking that you would set up a kar project with all the extra files, configuration, etc as well as listing or including the bundles, so you can install e.g. servicemix on any karaf instance as a kar, and then also set up a karaf-assembly project that produces a custom distribution based on that kar as well as everything else you want in the server.

The framework and full kars I added to assemblies/features combined with the new assemblies are one example of this technique, but maybe I should try it out on e.g. servicemix also as an example.  Is it clear where the servicemix assembly is?

thanks
david jencks

On Apr 9, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:

> Hi David,
> 
> 
>> I assume you are talking about the instructions for custom distributions here:
>> 
>> http://karaf.apache.org/manual/2.2.0/developers-guide/custom-distribution.html
>> 
> 
> yes, exactly
> 
>> The process described here is hideously complex compared to what I'm proposing.  To keep it available we need to keep the add-features-to-repo mojo.  If, after comparing equivalent old and new style karaf assembly projects, someone wants to keep it, fine.
> 
> well, it might be complex but most persons I know a very aware of how to
> use the assembly plugin of maven on building a
> nice little distribution :)
> 
>> Conceptually the main difference I see between old and new styles is that the old style relies on unpacking an existing distro whereas the new style currently asks you to copy the list of features and kars that were assembled into the existing distro.  I think I can set up an "uber feature" for each distro so there's only one feature going in, so in either style there would be exactly one artifact involved, but it might be a good idea to add an "unpack existing distro" mojo so the karaf-assembly packaging can also unpack something for you.  In this case I think the new style would be equivalent to the old style except you'd list the features to add as maven dependencies instead of configuring them in the k-m-p plugin configuration, and you' leave out 99% of the configuration.
>> 
>> Have you tried setting up a project to do a new-style assembly?  
> 
> No I didn't yet, but will give it a try. I just realized this big change.
> 
> 
> regards, Achim
> 
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 9, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all my comments in-line
>>> 
>>> regards, Achim
>>> 
>>>> Karaf is complete atomic and standalone OSGi container.
>>>> 
>>>> It should run by itself (and it's still the case).
>>>> 
>>> full ack, for just using camel you don't need anything else. This just
>>> as a quick description on how I am using Karaf very often.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> I think it's more logic for the projects to be build on top. Anyway,
>>>> I'm not against this new change as it could get life easy in the project.
>>>> David, did you launch a thread in the past on this mailing list, or
>>>> updated a wiki page describing this new philosophy ? Sorry if the
>>>> question is stupid, maybe I missed some messages, but I don't remember
>>>> lot of discussion on these changes.
>>>> 
>>> I did see some mail-threads touching parts of this, but somehow I was
>>> missing the big picture beforehand.
>>> IMHO for me this move was quite fast and a better discussion could have
>>> been helpful.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Let me make some try to have a better understanding. Anyway, I didn't
>>>> see any change on the manual around the "Karaf Custom Distribution"
>>>> section. It should be introduce and described in the manual.
>>>> 
>>> We surely need some very good documentation on this move, because we
>>> already have a description for how to build a custom distributions and
>>> people are already using it to make their own custom distribution. I
>>> used to do this at my former company
>>> and I'm sure the guys doing it now will get kind of upset if they have
>>> to change a lot on how to make a custom distribution.
>>> Just my 2 cent.
>>> 
>>>> I will do that regarding my tests on ServiceMix.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>> 
>>>> On 04/08/2011 09:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>> I'd like to suggest that it would be more appropriate for other
>>>>> projects such as servicemix to have one or more karaf-assembly
>>>>> packaging projects similar to the apache-karaf-framework or
>>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies but including exactly the content
>>>>> wanted, rather than starting with a distributed karaf server and
>>>>> modifying it.  That was more or less the point of introcuding the
>>>>> karaf-assembly packaging.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is a pretty dramatic change in philosophy of what karaf is and
>>>>> how to use it, but I think it is easier to use and a lot more
>>>>> flexible.  I think of karaf more as a way to construct servers rather
>>>>> than as a particular set of content in a server.
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Before, I will check the impact on some other projects, especially
>>>>>> around the groupId/artifactId used.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We made a mistake by changing the groupId/artifactId of features, I
>>>>>> don't wanna to have the same issue with the distribution assemblies.
>>>>>> Projects like ServiceMix use the Karaf distribution in their own
>>>>>> assembly. At least, we need to document the new Mojo, the new
>>>>>> distro, etc.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm gonna make some tests with ServiceMix and I will keep you posted.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> JB
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 04/08/2011 07:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>>> I'd like to suggest that we remove the old assemblies/apache-karaf
>>>>>>> and use instead the assemblies/apache-karaf-minimal and
>>>>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies constructed using the new mojos.  I
>>>>>>> think we can also remove a lot of mojos from the karaf-maven-plugin.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> With the exception of some configuration files, legal files, the
>>>>>>> demo files, and the inclusion of o.a.k.shell.ssh in the old minimal
>>>>>>> assembly by error, the contents of the corresponding new and old
>>>>>>> assemblies are the same.  A few more bundles start in the newer
>>>>>>> servers but I think these are errors similar to the inclusion of
>>>>>>> ssh in the minimal assemblies.  It would be great if someone more
>>>>>>> familiar with karaf history than I would investigate the
>>>>>>> differences and advise about what to do.  Basically I assume that
>>>>>>> all the bundles in system should be started, so the choices are to
>>>>>>> remove the extra bundles from system or to decide that indeed their
>>>>>>> presence is correct.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'm not sure what to do with the demos.  It's easy enough to write
>>>>>>> a kar file that will unpack the demo content so it will look just
>>>>>>> as it does today, but what's there strikes me as sort of horrible. 
>>>>>>> I don't really expect a server image to include maven projects that
>>>>>>> I can build to add functionality.  I think that it would be a lot
>>>>>>> more appropriate to have a customization maven archetype that will
>>>>>>> generate a full-featured customization project, and one or two demo
>>>>>>> features that can install prebuilt demo applications.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'm thinking about how best to install legal files into assemblies
>>>>>>> and hope to have a suggestion in the next few days.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The current apache-karaf builds some kind of source distribution. 
>>>>>>> I haven't looked into exactly what it is but suggest that the
>>>>>>> source distros produced by the apache release profile are sufficient.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Related to this suggestion I think it would be great if some of the
>>>>>>> other projects that use karaf such as servicemix, activemq,
>>>>>>> directory (?) tried out the new packagings to build custom server
>>>>>>> assemblies.  I will try to write up some documentation and maven
>>>>>>> archetypes for this in the next few days.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
> 

Re: Remove old apache-karaf assembly in favor of apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full?

[Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com>]

Hi David,


> I assume you are talking about the instructions for custom distributions here:
>
> http://karaf.apache.org/manual/2.2.0/developers-guide/custom-distribution.html
>

yes, exactly

> The process described here is hideously complex compared to what I'm proposing.  To keep it available we need to keep the add-features-to-repo mojo.  If, after comparing equivalent old and new style karaf assembly projects, someone wants to keep it, fine.

well, it might be complex but most persons I know a very aware of how to
use the assembly plugin of maven on building a
nice little distribution :)

> Conceptually the main difference I see between old and new styles is that the old style relies on unpacking an existing distro whereas the new style currently asks you to copy the list of features and kars that were assembled into the existing distro.  I think I can set up an "uber feature" for each distro so there's only one feature going in, so in either style there would be exactly one artifact involved, but it might be a good idea to add an "unpack existing distro" mojo so the karaf-assembly packaging can also unpack something for you.  In this case I think the new style would be equivalent to the old style except you'd list the features to add as maven dependencies instead of configuring them in the k-m-p plugin configuration, and you' leave out 99% of the configuration.
>
> Have you tried setting up a project to do a new-style assembly?  

No I didn't yet, but will give it a try. I just realized this big change.


regards, Achim

> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>
>> Hi all my comments in-line
>>
>> regards, Achim
>>
>>> Karaf is complete atomic and standalone OSGi container.
>>>
>>> It should run by itself (and it's still the case).
>>>
>> full ack, for just using camel you don't need anything else. This just
>> as a quick description on how I am using Karaf very often.
>>
>>
>>> I think it's more logic for the projects to be build on top. Anyway,
>>> I'm not against this new change as it could get life easy in the project.
>>> David, did you launch a thread in the past on this mailing list, or
>>> updated a wiki page describing this new philosophy ? Sorry if the
>>> question is stupid, maybe I missed some messages, but I don't remember
>>> lot of discussion on these changes.
>>>
>> I did see some mail-threads touching parts of this, but somehow I was
>> missing the big picture beforehand.
>> IMHO for me this move was quite fast and a better discussion could have
>> been helpful.
>>
>>
>>> Let me make some try to have a better understanding. Anyway, I didn't
>>> see any change on the manual around the "Karaf Custom Distribution"
>>> section. It should be introduce and described in the manual.
>>>
>> We surely need some very good documentation on this move, because we
>> already have a description for how to build a custom distributions and
>> people are already using it to make their own custom distribution. I
>> used to do this at my former company
>> and I'm sure the guys doing it now will get kind of upset if they have
>> to change a lot on how to make a custom distribution.
>> Just my 2 cent.
>>
>>> I will do that regarding my tests on ServiceMix.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>> On 04/08/2011 09:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>> I'd like to suggest that it would be more appropriate for other
>>>> projects such as servicemix to have one or more karaf-assembly
>>>> packaging projects similar to the apache-karaf-framework or
>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies but including exactly the content
>>>> wanted, rather than starting with a distributed karaf server and
>>>> modifying it.  That was more or less the point of introcuding the
>>>> karaf-assembly packaging.
>>>>
>>>> This is a pretty dramatic change in philosophy of what karaf is and
>>>> how to use it, but I think it is easier to use and a lot more
>>>> flexible.  I think of karaf more as a way to construct servers rather
>>>> than as a particular set of content in a server.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Before, I will check the impact on some other projects, especially
>>>>> around the groupId/artifactId used.
>>>>>
>>>>> We made a mistake by changing the groupId/artifactId of features, I
>>>>> don't wanna to have the same issue with the distribution assemblies.
>>>>> Projects like ServiceMix use the Karaf distribution in their own
>>>>> assembly. At least, we need to document the new Mojo, the new
>>>>> distro, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm gonna make some tests with ServiceMix and I will keep you posted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> JB
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/08/2011 07:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>>> I'd like to suggest that we remove the old assemblies/apache-karaf
>>>>>> and use instead the assemblies/apache-karaf-minimal and
>>>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies constructed using the new mojos.  I
>>>>>> think we can also remove a lot of mojos from the karaf-maven-plugin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the exception of some configuration files, legal files, the
>>>>>> demo files, and the inclusion of o.a.k.shell.ssh in the old minimal
>>>>>> assembly by error, the contents of the corresponding new and old
>>>>>> assemblies are the same.  A few more bundles start in the newer
>>>>>> servers but I think these are errors similar to the inclusion of
>>>>>> ssh in the minimal assemblies.  It would be great if someone more
>>>>>> familiar with karaf history than I would investigate the
>>>>>> differences and advise about what to do.  Basically I assume that
>>>>>> all the bundles in system should be started, so the choices are to
>>>>>> remove the extra bundles from system or to decide that indeed their
>>>>>> presence is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure what to do with the demos.  It's easy enough to write
>>>>>> a kar file that will unpack the demo content so it will look just
>>>>>> as it does today, but what's there strikes me as sort of horrible. 
>>>>>> I don't really expect a server image to include maven projects that
>>>>>> I can build to add functionality.  I think that it would be a lot
>>>>>> more appropriate to have a customization maven archetype that will
>>>>>> generate a full-featured customization project, and one or two demo
>>>>>> features that can install prebuilt demo applications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm thinking about how best to install legal files into assemblies
>>>>>> and hope to have a suggestion in the next few days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The current apache-karaf builds some kind of source distribution. 
>>>>>> I haven't looked into exactly what it is but suggest that the
>>>>>> source distros produced by the apache release profile are sufficient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Related to this suggestion I think it would be great if some of the
>>>>>> other projects that use karaf such as servicemix, activemq,
>>>>>> directory (?) tried out the new packagings to build custom server
>>>>>> assemblies.  I will try to write up some documentation and maven
>>>>>> archetypes for this in the next few days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> david jencks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

Re: Remove old apache-karaf assembly in favor of apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full?

[David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>]

I assume you are talking about the instructions for custom distributions here:

http://karaf.apache.org/manual/2.2.0/developers-guide/custom-distribution.html

The process described here is hideously complex compared to what I'm proposing.  To keep it available we need to keep the add-features-to-repo mojo.  If, after comparing equivalent old and new style karaf assembly projects, someone wants to keep it, fine.

Conceptually the main difference I see between old and new styles is that the old style relies on unpacking an existing distro whereas the new style currently asks you to copy the list of features and kars that were assembled into the existing distro.  I think I can set up an "uber feature" for each distro so there's only one feature going in, so in either style there would be exactly one artifact involved, but it might be a good idea to add an "unpack existing distro" mojo so the karaf-assembly packaging can also unpack something for you.  In this case I think the new style would be equivalent to the old style except you'd list the features to add as maven dependencies instead of configuring them in the k-m-p plugin configuration, and you' leave out 99% of the configuration.

Have you tried setting up a project to do a new-style assembly?  

thanks
david jencks


On Apr 9, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:

> Hi all my comments in-line
> 
> regards, Achim
> 
>> Karaf is complete atomic and standalone OSGi container.
>> 
>> It should run by itself (and it's still the case).
>> 
> 
> full ack, for just using camel you don't need anything else. This just
> as a quick description on how I am using Karaf very often.
> 
> 
>> I think it's more logic for the projects to be build on top. Anyway,
>> I'm not against this new change as it could get life easy in the project.
>> David, did you launch a thread in the past on this mailing list, or
>> updated a wiki page describing this new philosophy ? Sorry if the
>> question is stupid, maybe I missed some messages, but I don't remember
>> lot of discussion on these changes.
>> 
> 
> I did see some mail-threads touching parts of this, but somehow I was
> missing the big picture beforehand.
> IMHO for me this move was quite fast and a better discussion could have
> been helpful.
> 
> 
>> Let me make some try to have a better understanding. Anyway, I didn't
>> see any change on the manual around the "Karaf Custom Distribution"
>> section. It should be introduce and described in the manual.
>> 
> We surely need some very good documentation on this move, because we
> already have a description for how to build a custom distributions and
> people are already using it to make their own custom distribution. I
> used to do this at my former company
> and I'm sure the guys doing it now will get kind of upset if they have
> to change a lot on how to make a custom distribution.
> Just my 2 cent.
> 
>> I will do that regarding my tests on ServiceMix.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Regards
>> JB
>> 
>> On 04/08/2011 09:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>> I'd like to suggest that it would be more appropriate for other
>>> projects such as servicemix to have one or more karaf-assembly
>>> packaging projects similar to the apache-karaf-framework or
>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies but including exactly the content
>>> wanted, rather than starting with a distributed karaf server and
>>> modifying it.  That was more or less the point of introcuding the
>>> karaf-assembly packaging.
>>> 
>>> This is a pretty dramatic change in philosophy of what karaf is and
>>> how to use it, but I think it is easier to use and a lot more
>>> flexible.  I think of karaf more as a way to construct servers rather
>>> than as a particular set of content in a server.
>>> 
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>> 
>>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Before, I will check the impact on some other projects, especially
>>>> around the groupId/artifactId used.
>>>> 
>>>> We made a mistake by changing the groupId/artifactId of features, I
>>>> don't wanna to have the same issue with the distribution assemblies.
>>>> Projects like ServiceMix use the Karaf distribution in their own
>>>> assembly. At least, we need to document the new Mojo, the new
>>>> distro, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm gonna make some tests with ServiceMix and I will keep you posted.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>> 
>>>> On 04/08/2011 07:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>>> I'd like to suggest that we remove the old assemblies/apache-karaf
>>>>> and use instead the assemblies/apache-karaf-minimal and
>>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies constructed using the new mojos.  I
>>>>> think we can also remove a lot of mojos from the karaf-maven-plugin.
>>>>> 
>>>>> With the exception of some configuration files, legal files, the
>>>>> demo files, and the inclusion of o.a.k.shell.ssh in the old minimal
>>>>> assembly by error, the contents of the corresponding new and old
>>>>> assemblies are the same.  A few more bundles start in the newer
>>>>> servers but I think these are errors similar to the inclusion of
>>>>> ssh in the minimal assemblies.  It would be great if someone more
>>>>> familiar with karaf history than I would investigate the
>>>>> differences and advise about what to do.  Basically I assume that
>>>>> all the bundles in system should be started, so the choices are to
>>>>> remove the extra bundles from system or to decide that indeed their
>>>>> presence is correct.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm not sure what to do with the demos.  It's easy enough to write
>>>>> a kar file that will unpack the demo content so it will look just
>>>>> as it does today, but what's there strikes me as sort of horrible. 
>>>>> I don't really expect a server image to include maven projects that
>>>>> I can build to add functionality.  I think that it would be a lot
>>>>> more appropriate to have a customization maven archetype that will
>>>>> generate a full-featured customization project, and one or two demo
>>>>> features that can install prebuilt demo applications.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm thinking about how best to install legal files into assemblies
>>>>> and hope to have a suggestion in the next few days.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The current apache-karaf builds some kind of source distribution. 
>>>>> I haven't looked into exactly what it is but suggest that the
>>>>> source distros produced by the apache release profile are sufficient.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Related to this suggestion I think it would be great if some of the
>>>>> other projects that use karaf such as servicemix, activemq,
>>>>> directory (?) tried out the new packagings to build custom server
>>>>> assemblies.  I will try to write up some documentation and maven
>>>>> archetypes for this in the next few days.
>>>>> 
>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> david jencks
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
> 

Re: Remove old apache-karaf assembly in favor of apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full?

[Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com>]

Hi all my comments in-line

regards, Achim

> Karaf is complete atomic and standalone OSGi container.
>
> It should run by itself (and it's still the case).
>

full ack, for just using camel you don't need anything else. This just
as a quick description on how I am using Karaf very often.


> I think it's more logic for the projects to be build on top. Anyway,
> I'm not against this new change as it could get life easy in the project.
> David, did you launch a thread in the past on this mailing list, or
> updated a wiki page describing this new philosophy ? Sorry if the
> question is stupid, maybe I missed some messages, but I don't remember
> lot of discussion on these changes.
>

I did see some mail-threads touching parts of this, but somehow I was
missing the big picture beforehand.
IMHO for me this move was quite fast and a better discussion could have
been helpful.


> Let me make some try to have a better understanding. Anyway, I didn't
> see any change on the manual around the "Karaf Custom Distribution"
> section. It should be introduce and described in the manual.
>
We surely need some very good documentation on this move, because we
already have a description for how to build a custom distributions and
people are already using it to make their own custom distribution. I
used to do this at my former company
and I'm sure the guys doing it now will get kind of upset if they have
to change a lot on how to make a custom distribution.
Just my 2 cent.

> I will do that regarding my tests on ServiceMix.
>
> Thanks
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 04/08/2011 09:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> I'd like to suggest that it would be more appropriate for other
>> projects such as servicemix to have one or more karaf-assembly
>> packaging projects similar to the apache-karaf-framework or
>> apache-karaf-full assemblies but including exactly the content
>> wanted, rather than starting with a distributed karaf server and
>> modifying it.  That was more or less the point of introcuding the
>> karaf-assembly packaging.
>>
>> This is a pretty dramatic change in philosophy of what karaf is and
>> how to use it, but I think it is easier to use and a lot more
>> flexible.  I think of karaf more as a way to construct servers rather
>> than as a particular set of content in a server.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>
>>> Before, I will check the impact on some other projects, especially
>>> around the groupId/artifactId used.
>>>
>>> We made a mistake by changing the groupId/artifactId of features, I
>>> don't wanna to have the same issue with the distribution assemblies.
>>> Projects like ServiceMix use the Karaf distribution in their own
>>> assembly. At least, we need to document the new Mojo, the new
>>> distro, etc.
>>>
>>> I'm gonna make some tests with ServiceMix and I will keep you posted.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>> On 04/08/2011 07:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>>> I'd like to suggest that we remove the old assemblies/apache-karaf
>>>> and use instead the assemblies/apache-karaf-minimal and
>>>> apache-karaf-full assemblies constructed using the new mojos.  I
>>>> think we can also remove a lot of mojos from the karaf-maven-plugin.
>>>>
>>>> With the exception of some configuration files, legal files, the
>>>> demo files, and the inclusion of o.a.k.shell.ssh in the old minimal
>>>> assembly by error, the contents of the corresponding new and old
>>>> assemblies are the same.  A few more bundles start in the newer
>>>> servers but I think these are errors similar to the inclusion of
>>>> ssh in the minimal assemblies.  It would be great if someone more
>>>> familiar with karaf history than I would investigate the
>>>> differences and advise about what to do.  Basically I assume that
>>>> all the bundles in system should be started, so the choices are to
>>>> remove the extra bundles from system or to decide that indeed their
>>>> presence is correct.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what to do with the demos.  It's easy enough to write
>>>> a kar file that will unpack the demo content so it will look just
>>>> as it does today, but what's there strikes me as sort of horrible. 
>>>> I don't really expect a server image to include maven projects that
>>>> I can build to add functionality.  I think that it would be a lot
>>>> more appropriate to have a customization maven archetype that will
>>>> generate a full-featured customization project, and one or two demo
>>>> features that can install prebuilt demo applications.
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking about how best to install legal files into assemblies
>>>> and hope to have a suggestion in the next few days.
>>>>
>>>> The current apache-karaf builds some kind of source distribution. 
>>>> I haven't looked into exactly what it is but suggest that the
>>>> source distros produced by the apache release profile are sufficient.
>>>>
>>>> Related to this suggestion I think it would be great if some of the
>>>> other projects that use karaf such as servicemix, activemq,
>>>> directory (?) tried out the new packagings to build custom server
>>>> assemblies.  I will try to write up some documentation and maven
>>>> archetypes for this in the next few days.
>>>>
>>>> thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>

Re: Remove old apache-karaf assembly in favor of apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full?

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>]

Karaf is complete atomic and standalone OSGi container.

It should run by itself (and it's still the case).

I think it's more logic for the projects to be build on top. Anyway, I'm 
not against this new change as it could get life easy in the project.
David, did you launch a thread in the past on this mailing list, or 
updated a wiki page describing this new philosophy ? Sorry if the 
question is stupid, maybe I missed some messages, but I don't remember 
lot of discussion on these changes.

Let me make some try to have a better understanding. Anyway, I didn't 
see any change on the manual around the "Karaf Custom Distribution" 
section. It should be introduce and described in the manual.

I will do that regarding my tests on ServiceMix.

Thanks
Regards
JB

On 04/08/2011 09:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that it would be more appropriate for other projects such as servicemix to have one or more karaf-assembly packaging projects similar to the apache-karaf-framework or apache-karaf-full assemblies but including exactly the content wanted, rather than starting with a distributed karaf server and modifying it.  That was more or less the point of introcuding the karaf-assembly packaging.
>
> This is a pretty dramatic change in philosophy of what karaf is and how to use it, but I think it is easier to use and a lot more flexible.  I think of karaf more as a way to construct servers rather than as a particular set of content in a server.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Apr 8, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>
>> Before, I will check the impact on some other projects, especially around the groupId/artifactId used.
>>
>> We made a mistake by changing the groupId/artifactId of features, I don't wanna to have the same issue with the distribution assemblies.
>> Projects like ServiceMix use the Karaf distribution in their own assembly. At least, we need to document the new Mojo, the new distro, etc.
>>
>> I'm gonna make some tests with ServiceMix and I will keep you posted.
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On 04/08/2011 07:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>> I'd like to suggest that we remove the old assemblies/apache-karaf and use instead the assemblies/apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full assemblies constructed using the new mojos.  I think we can also remove a lot of mojos from the karaf-maven-plugin.
>>>
>>> With the exception of some configuration files, legal files, the demo files, and the inclusion of o.a.k.shell.ssh in the old minimal assembly by error, the contents of the corresponding new and old assemblies are the same.  A few more bundles start in the newer servers but I think these are errors similar to the inclusion of ssh in the minimal assemblies.  It would be great if someone more familiar with karaf history than I would investigate the differences and advise about what to do.  Basically I assume that all the bundles in system should be started, so the choices are to remove the extra bundles from system or to decide that indeed their presence is correct.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what to do with the demos.  It's easy enough to write a kar file that will unpack the demo content so it will look just as it does today, but what's there strikes me as sort of horrible.  I don't really expect a server image to include maven projects that I can build to add functionality.  I think that it would be a lot more appropriate to have a customization maven archetype that will generate a full-featured customization project, and one or two demo features that can install prebuilt demo applications.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking about how best to install legal files into assemblies and hope to have a suggestion in the next few days.
>>>
>>> The current apache-karaf builds some kind of source distribution.  I haven't looked into exactly what it is but suggest that the source distros produced by the apache release profile are sufficient.
>>>
>>> Related to this suggestion I think it would be great if some of the other projects that use karaf such as servicemix, activemq, directory (?) tried out the new packagings to build custom server assemblies.  I will try to write up some documentation and maven archetypes for this in the next few days.
>>>
>>> thoughts?
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: Remove old apache-karaf assembly in favor of apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full?

[David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>]

I'd like to suggest that it would be more appropriate for other projects such as servicemix to have one or more karaf-assembly packaging projects similar to the apache-karaf-framework or apache-karaf-full assemblies but including exactly the content wanted, rather than starting with a distributed karaf server and modifying it.  That was more or less the point of introcuding the karaf-assembly packaging.

This is a pretty dramatic change in philosophy of what karaf is and how to use it, but I think it is easier to use and a lot more flexible.  I think of karaf more as a way to construct servers rather than as a particular set of content in a server.

thanks
david jencks
 
On Apr 8, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:

> Before, I will check the impact on some other projects, especially around the groupId/artifactId used.
> 
> We made a mistake by changing the groupId/artifactId of features, I don't wanna to have the same issue with the distribution assemblies.
> Projects like ServiceMix use the Karaf distribution in their own assembly. At least, we need to document the new Mojo, the new distro, etc.
> 
> I'm gonna make some tests with ServiceMix and I will keep you posted.
> 
> Regards
> JB
> 
> On 04/08/2011 07:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> I'd like to suggest that we remove the old assemblies/apache-karaf and use instead the assemblies/apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full assemblies constructed using the new mojos.  I think we can also remove a lot of mojos from the karaf-maven-plugin.
>> 
>> With the exception of some configuration files, legal files, the demo files, and the inclusion of o.a.k.shell.ssh in the old minimal assembly by error, the contents of the corresponding new and old assemblies are the same.  A few more bundles start in the newer servers but I think these are errors similar to the inclusion of ssh in the minimal assemblies.  It would be great if someone more familiar with karaf history than I would investigate the differences and advise about what to do.  Basically I assume that all the bundles in system should be started, so the choices are to remove the extra bundles from system or to decide that indeed their presence is correct.
>> 
>> I'm not sure what to do with the demos.  It's easy enough to write a kar file that will unpack the demo content so it will look just as it does today, but what's there strikes me as sort of horrible.  I don't really expect a server image to include maven projects that I can build to add functionality.  I think that it would be a lot more appropriate to have a customization maven archetype that will generate a full-featured customization project, and one or two demo features that can install prebuilt demo applications.
>> 
>> I'm thinking about how best to install legal files into assemblies and hope to have a suggestion in the next few days.
>> 
>> The current apache-karaf builds some kind of source distribution.  I haven't looked into exactly what it is but suggest that the source distros produced by the apache release profile are sufficient.
>> 
>> Related to this suggestion I think it would be great if some of the other projects that use karaf such as servicemix, activemq, directory (?) tried out the new packagings to build custom server assemblies.  I will try to write up some documentation and maven archetypes for this in the next few days.
>> 
>> thoughts?
>> 
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: Remove old apache-karaf assembly in favor of apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full?

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>]

Before, I will check the impact on some other projects, especially 
around the groupId/artifactId used.

We made a mistake by changing the groupId/artifactId of features, I 
don't wanna to have the same issue with the distribution assemblies.
Projects like ServiceMix use the Karaf distribution in their own 
assembly. At least, we need to document the new Mojo, the new distro, etc.

I'm gonna make some tests with ServiceMix and I will keep you posted.

Regards
JB

On 04/08/2011 07:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that we remove the old assemblies/apache-karaf and use instead the assemblies/apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full assemblies constructed using the new mojos.  I think we can also remove a lot of mojos from the karaf-maven-plugin.
>
> With the exception of some configuration files, legal files, the demo files, and the inclusion of o.a.k.shell.ssh in the old minimal assembly by error, the contents of the corresponding new and old assemblies are the same.  A few more bundles start in the newer servers but I think these are errors similar to the inclusion of ssh in the minimal assemblies.  It would be great if someone more familiar with karaf history than I would investigate the differences and advise about what to do.  Basically I assume that all the bundles in system should be started, so the choices are to remove the extra bundles from system or to decide that indeed their presence is correct.
>
> I'm not sure what to do with the demos.  It's easy enough to write a kar file that will unpack the demo content so it will look just as it does today, but what's there strikes me as sort of horrible.  I don't really expect a server image to include maven projects that I can build to add functionality.  I think that it would be a lot more appropriate to have a customization maven archetype that will generate a full-featured customization project, and one or two demo features that can install prebuilt demo applications.
>
> I'm thinking about how best to install legal files into assemblies and hope to have a suggestion in the next few days.
>
> The current apache-karaf builds some kind of source distribution.  I haven't looked into exactly what it is but suggest that the source distros produced by the apache release profile are sufficient.
>
> Related to this suggestion I think it would be great if some of the other projects that use karaf such as servicemix, activemq, directory (?) tried out the new packagings to build custom server assemblies.  I will try to write up some documentation and maven archetypes for this in the next few days.
>
> thoughts?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>