You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@karaf.apache.org by Łukasz Dywicki <lu...@code-house.org> on 2012/08/16 22:26:27 UTC
WebConsole versioning
Once again I back with WebConsole topic. As we plan to support bot 2.x and 3.x line. Current trunk (0.3.0-SNAPSHOT) of webconsole supports 2.x and I am about to start 3.x branch to get karaf trunk also supported. The problem is that we can not have the same version for both Karaf versions due changes in package names and so on. So the WebConsole must have two different versions, one for Karaf 2.x and second for 3.x.
Another option is to make *core* of webconsole Karaf version agnostic, but then we still have submodules which have to support different versions of Karaf & OSGi runtime. Currently thing which breaks compability of 2.x vs 3.x is JAAS stuff and move of some packages to jaas.boot. In my opinion it's easier to manage release process with one version per branch, not like Aries does - a version per module.
On IRC we had few options, one was classifier, another was to start with 2.x version for Karaf 2.x and 3.x for Karaf 3.x - just like we have with Cellar.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Lukasz
Re: WebConsole versioning
Posted by Łukasz Dywicki <lu...@code-house.org>.
That's whole plan. To go beyond karaf as runtime and let others adopt console with some other container/server environment.
Best regards,
Łukasz Dywicki
--
Code-House
http://code-house.org
Dnia 20 sie 2012 o godz. 10:16 Ioannis Canellos <io...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> That's interesting.
>
> What are the long term goals here? If the long term vision is to have this
> console adopted by other runtimes, that are currently use the felix web
> console, then the suggestion no 2 makes a lot of sense.
> If we don't have a clean goal set here. I'd say keep a single branch, till
> we release karaf 3 or until we have an other target platform than karaf
> 2.2.x. This will reduce the maintainance.
>
>
>
> --
> *Ioannis Canellos*
> *
> FuseSource <http://fusesource.com>
>
> **
> Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com
> **
> Twitter: iocanel
> *
Re: WebConsole versioning
Posted by Ioannis Canellos <io...@gmail.com>.
That's interesting.
What are the long term goals here? If the long term vision is to have this
console adopted by other runtimes, that are currently use the felix web
console, then the suggestion no 2 makes a lot of sense.
If we don't have a clean goal set here. I'd say keep a single branch, till
we release karaf 3 or until we have an other target platform than karaf
2.2.x. This will reduce the maintainance.
--
*Ioannis Canellos*
*
FuseSource <http://fusesource.com>
**
Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com
**
Twitter: iocanel
*
Re: WebConsole versioning
Posted by Łukasz Dywicki <lu...@code-house.org>.
Please keep in mind that Cellar is more specific to Karaf than Web Console is. People can run Web Console on single node, for development purposes and so on. I won't say that Cellar is only for Karaf, but it's mostly used with Karaf.
Going further Karaf can be one from platforms supported by Web Console. Maybe we can do something tricky and separately release core of Web Console and have branding/platform support for Karaf 2.x and 3.x? Things like OSGi management do not depend of Karaf and we should not have two different versions of same code, don't you think?
For now we have
webconsole
- core
- osgi
- core
- config
- karaf
- features
- admin
- admin
- web
We could do:
webconsole
- core
- osgi
- core
- config
- admin
- platform
- web
- karaf-2.x
- features
- admin
- karaf-3.x
- features
- admin
Thanks to that we'll keep same version of common artifacts and have support for Karaf 2.x and 3.x. We can also have a separate branches of platforms.
That makes versioning a bit more complicated, but I think it fits development better and it's still simple for user.
Best regards,
Lukasz
Wiadomość napisana przez Achim Nierbeck w dniu 18 sie 2012, o godz. 19:06:
> +1, for keeping the same versioning as in Cellar
>
> 2012/8/17 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>:
>> It sounds good, I will do that in Cellar if all agrees.
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>>
>> On 08/17/2012 06:38 AM, Andreas Pieber wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm with Lukasz on that one; we should keep our releases as simple as
>>> possible, even if this means some more cherry-picking between the
>>> various branches. Independently, after getting some good portion of
>>> sleep and some more time to think about this issue I think we should
>>> walk down the same road as cellar: using 2.x for karaf 2.x support and
>>> 3.x for karaf 3 support (although this limits our version range
>>> according to semver.org). An option around this problem might be to
>>> add an additional version behind; e.g. starting with 2.0.0.0 and
>>> 3.0.0.0 for the first releases; or in other words
>>> KARAF.WC_MAJOR.WC_MINOR.WC_MICRO.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Łukasz Dywicki <lu...@code-house.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Once again I back with WebConsole topic. As we plan to support bot 2.x
>>>> and 3.x line. Current trunk (0.3.0-SNAPSHOT) of webconsole supports 2.x and
>>>> I am about to start 3.x branch to get karaf trunk also supported. The
>>>> problem is that we can not have the same version for both Karaf versions due
>>>> changes in package names and so on. So the WebConsole must have two
>>>> different versions, one for Karaf 2.x and second for 3.x.
>>>>
>>>> Another option is to make *core* of webconsole Karaf version agnostic,
>>>> but then we still have submodules which have to support different versions
>>>> of Karaf & OSGi runtime. Currently thing which breaks compability of 2.x vs
>>>> 3.x is JAAS stuff and move of some packages to jaas.boot. In my opinion it's
>>>> easier to manage release process with one version per branch, not like Aries
>>>> does - a version per module.
>>>>
>>>> On IRC we had few options, one was classifier, another was to start with
>>>> 2.x version for Karaf 2.x and 3.x for Karaf 3.x - just like we have with
>>>> Cellar.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Lukasz
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
>
>
> --
>
> Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
> OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/>
> Committer & Project Lead
> OPS4J Pax for Vaadin
> <http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home> Commiter & Project
> Lead
> blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
Re: WebConsole versioning
Posted by Achim Nierbeck <bc...@googlemail.com>.
+1, for keeping the same versioning as in Cellar
2012/8/17 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>:
> It sounds good, I will do that in Cellar if all agrees.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 08/17/2012 06:38 AM, Andreas Pieber wrote:
>>
>> I'm with Lukasz on that one; we should keep our releases as simple as
>> possible, even if this means some more cherry-picking between the
>> various branches. Independently, after getting some good portion of
>> sleep and some more time to think about this issue I think we should
>> walk down the same road as cellar: using 2.x for karaf 2.x support and
>> 3.x for karaf 3 support (although this limits our version range
>> according to semver.org). An option around this problem might be to
>> add an additional version behind; e.g. starting with 2.0.0.0 and
>> 3.0.0.0 for the first releases; or in other words
>> KARAF.WC_MAJOR.WC_MINOR.WC_MICRO.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Andreas
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Łukasz Dywicki <lu...@code-house.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Once again I back with WebConsole topic. As we plan to support bot 2.x
>>> and 3.x line. Current trunk (0.3.0-SNAPSHOT) of webconsole supports 2.x and
>>> I am about to start 3.x branch to get karaf trunk also supported. The
>>> problem is that we can not have the same version for both Karaf versions due
>>> changes in package names and so on. So the WebConsole must have two
>>> different versions, one for Karaf 2.x and second for 3.x.
>>>
>>> Another option is to make *core* of webconsole Karaf version agnostic,
>>> but then we still have submodules which have to support different versions
>>> of Karaf & OSGi runtime. Currently thing which breaks compability of 2.x vs
>>> 3.x is JAAS stuff and move of some packages to jaas.boot. In my opinion it's
>>> easier to manage release process with one version per branch, not like Aries
>>> does - a version per module.
>>>
>>> On IRC we had few options, one was classifier, another was to start with
>>> 2.x version for Karaf 2.x and 3.x for Karaf 3.x - just like we have with
>>> Cellar.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Lukasz
>
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
--
Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/>
Committer & Project Lead
OPS4J Pax for Vaadin
<http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home> Commiter & Project
Lead
blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
Re: WebConsole versioning
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
It sounds good, I will do that in Cellar if all agrees.
Regards
JB
On 08/17/2012 06:38 AM, Andreas Pieber wrote:
> I'm with Lukasz on that one; we should keep our releases as simple as
> possible, even if this means some more cherry-picking between the
> various branches. Independently, after getting some good portion of
> sleep and some more time to think about this issue I think we should
> walk down the same road as cellar: using 2.x for karaf 2.x support and
> 3.x for karaf 3 support (although this limits our version range
> according to semver.org). An option around this problem might be to
> add an additional version behind; e.g. starting with 2.0.0.0 and
> 3.0.0.0 for the first releases; or in other words
> KARAF.WC_MAJOR.WC_MINOR.WC_MICRO.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Kind regards,
> Andreas
>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Łukasz Dywicki <lu...@code-house.org> wrote:
>> Once again I back with WebConsole topic. As we plan to support bot 2.x and 3.x line. Current trunk (0.3.0-SNAPSHOT) of webconsole supports 2.x and I am about to start 3.x branch to get karaf trunk also supported. The problem is that we can not have the same version for both Karaf versions due changes in package names and so on. So the WebConsole must have two different versions, one for Karaf 2.x and second for 3.x.
>>
>> Another option is to make *core* of webconsole Karaf version agnostic, but then we still have submodules which have to support different versions of Karaf & OSGi runtime. Currently thing which breaks compability of 2.x vs 3.x is JAAS stuff and move of some packages to jaas.boot. In my opinion it's easier to manage release process with one version per branch, not like Aries does - a version per module.
>>
>> On IRC we had few options, one was classifier, another was to start with 2.x version for Karaf 2.x and 3.x for Karaf 3.x - just like we have with Cellar.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Lukasz
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: WebConsole versioning
Posted by "Jamie G." <ja...@gmail.com>.
+1 I like the idea Andreas.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Charles Moulliard <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Keep things simple and adopt same convention as cellar
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm with Lukasz on that one; we should keep our releases as simple as
>> possible, even if this means some more cherry-picking between the
>> various branches. Independently, after getting some good portion of
>> sleep and some more time to think about this issue I think we should
>> walk down the same road as cellar: using 2.x for karaf 2.x support and
>> 3.x for karaf 3 support (although this limits our version range
>> according to semver.org). An option around this problem might be to
>> add an additional version behind; e.g. starting with 2.0.0.0 and
>> 3.0.0.0 for the first releases; or in other words
>> KARAF.WC_MAJOR.WC_MINOR.WC_MICRO.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Andreas
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Łukasz Dywicki <lu...@code-house.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Once again I back with WebConsole topic. As we plan to support bot 2.x
>> and 3.x line. Current trunk (0.3.0-SNAPSHOT) of webconsole supports 2.x and
>> I am about to start 3.x branch to get karaf trunk also supported. The
>> problem is that we can not have the same version for both Karaf versions
>> due changes in package names and so on. So the WebConsole must have two
>> different versions, one for Karaf 2.x and second for 3.x.
>> >
>> > Another option is to make *core* of webconsole Karaf version agnostic,
>> but then we still have submodules which have to support different versions
>> of Karaf & OSGi runtime. Currently thing which breaks compability of 2.x vs
>> 3.x is JAAS stuff and move of some packages to jaas.boot. In my opinion
>> it's easier to manage release process with one version per branch, not like
>> Aries does - a version per module.
>> >
>> > On IRC we had few options, one was classifier, another was to start with
>> 2.x version for Karaf 2.x and 3.x for Karaf 3.x - just like we have with
>> Cellar.
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Lukasz
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Charles Moulliard
> Apache Committer / Sr. Pr. Consultant at FuseSource.com
> Twitter : @cmoulliard
> Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com
Re: WebConsole versioning
Posted by Charles Moulliard <ch...@gmail.com>.
Keep things simple and adopt same convention as cellar
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm with Lukasz on that one; we should keep our releases as simple as
> possible, even if this means some more cherry-picking between the
> various branches. Independently, after getting some good portion of
> sleep and some more time to think about this issue I think we should
> walk down the same road as cellar: using 2.x for karaf 2.x support and
> 3.x for karaf 3 support (although this limits our version range
> according to semver.org). An option around this problem might be to
> add an additional version behind; e.g. starting with 2.0.0.0 and
> 3.0.0.0 for the first releases; or in other words
> KARAF.WC_MAJOR.WC_MINOR.WC_MICRO.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Kind regards,
> Andreas
>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Łukasz Dywicki <lu...@code-house.org>
> wrote:
> > Once again I back with WebConsole topic. As we plan to support bot 2.x
> and 3.x line. Current trunk (0.3.0-SNAPSHOT) of webconsole supports 2.x and
> I am about to start 3.x branch to get karaf trunk also supported. The
> problem is that we can not have the same version for both Karaf versions
> due changes in package names and so on. So the WebConsole must have two
> different versions, one for Karaf 2.x and second for 3.x.
> >
> > Another option is to make *core* of webconsole Karaf version agnostic,
> but then we still have submodules which have to support different versions
> of Karaf & OSGi runtime. Currently thing which breaks compability of 2.x vs
> 3.x is JAAS stuff and move of some packages to jaas.boot. In my opinion
> it's easier to manage release process with one version per branch, not like
> Aries does - a version per module.
> >
> > On IRC we had few options, one was classifier, another was to start with
> 2.x version for Karaf 2.x and 3.x for Karaf 3.x - just like we have with
> Cellar.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Lukasz
>
--
Charles Moulliard
Apache Committer / Sr. Pr. Consultant at FuseSource.com
Twitter : @cmoulliard
Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com
Re: WebConsole versioning
Posted by Andreas Pieber <an...@gmail.com>.
I'm with Lukasz on that one; we should keep our releases as simple as
possible, even if this means some more cherry-picking between the
various branches. Independently, after getting some good portion of
sleep and some more time to think about this issue I think we should
walk down the same road as cellar: using 2.x for karaf 2.x support and
3.x for karaf 3 support (although this limits our version range
according to semver.org). An option around this problem might be to
add an additional version behind; e.g. starting with 2.0.0.0 and
3.0.0.0 for the first releases; or in other words
KARAF.WC_MAJOR.WC_MINOR.WC_MICRO.
WDYT?
Kind regards,
Andreas
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Łukasz Dywicki <lu...@code-house.org> wrote:
> Once again I back with WebConsole topic. As we plan to support bot 2.x and 3.x line. Current trunk (0.3.0-SNAPSHOT) of webconsole supports 2.x and I am about to start 3.x branch to get karaf trunk also supported. The problem is that we can not have the same version for both Karaf versions due changes in package names and so on. So the WebConsole must have two different versions, one for Karaf 2.x and second for 3.x.
>
> Another option is to make *core* of webconsole Karaf version agnostic, but then we still have submodules which have to support different versions of Karaf & OSGi runtime. Currently thing which breaks compability of 2.x vs 3.x is JAAS stuff and move of some packages to jaas.boot. In my opinion it's easier to manage release process with one version per branch, not like Aries does - a version per module.
>
> On IRC we had few options, one was classifier, another was to start with 2.x version for Karaf 2.x and 3.x for Karaf 3.x - just like we have with Cellar.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Lukasz