You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@karaf.apache.org by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com> on 2020/01/27 07:11:36 UTC
Jdk9plus: materialize it or not
Hi all,
Playing with the r7 branch i tried to build an osgi-cdi distro but stumbled
upon the fact jdk9plus folder breaks resolution chain quite easily when
switching of jdk.
Long story short, having annotation, activation (and potentially jaxb but i
didnt need this one ;)) does not enable to have them as bundle in the same
version - so to do dynamic updates too ;) - and they miss osgi.contract
entry config.
I wonder if there is any rational to have them at all, sounds like karaf
can boot without them and just move to bundles all the logic potentially
needing them so no need to patch the classpath for java >= 9 IMHO.
Did I miss anything?
Is it something to plan to clean up for karaf 4.3.0?
Re: Jdk9plus: materialize it or not
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Side note: dropping javax.annotation and its declaration in jre-9 i managed
to move forward and no issue since jre part of karaf uses the jre
automatically and other parts use the bundle i deployed.
So likely some work to do but kind of confirm it is a good option.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le mar. 28 janv. 2020 à 07:05, Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> Thanks Robert
>
> At least I was able to see `Multi-Release` jars/bundles in action. In Pax
> Logging 2.0.x I did this to make Log4j2 work under JDK8 and JDK9+
> <
> https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.logging/blob/logging-2.0.2/pax-logging-api/osgi.bnd#L103
> >
> .
>
> regards
> Grzegorz Grzybek
>
> pon., 27 sty 2020 o 13:47 Robert Varga <ni...@hq.sk> napisał(a):
>
> > On 27/01/2020 09:26, Grzegorz Grzybek wrote:
> > > Thanks for explanation. I told you - I've never used anything above
> > JDK8...
> > >
> > > And I know this Jigsaw thing brings more trouble than benefits...
> Anyone
> > of
> > > you using JDK9+ modules at all? Or only making workarounds for them? :)
> >
> > Well, there is a project tracking JPMS modules in Central here:
> > https://github.com/sormuras/modules :)
> >
> > OpenDaylight current development release does require JDK11 (for
> > VarHandles mostly) and we do have a number of automatic modules and a
> > few explicit modules.
> >
> > This is low-priority work as we are waiting for OSGi R7-compliant Karaf
> > (due to
> > https://blog.osgi.org/2018/02/osgi-r7-highlights-java-9-support.html and
> > SCR annotation improvements). Once we have that, I expect the pace of
> > JPMS adoption to pick up. With
> > https://blog.osgi.org/2019/09/osgi-connect-revisited.html it may
> > actually be useful in the future :)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Robert
> >
> >
>
Re: Jdk9plus: materialize it or not
Posted by Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Robert
At least I was able to see `Multi-Release` jars/bundles in action. In Pax
Logging 2.0.x I did this to make Log4j2 work under JDK8 and JDK9+
<https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.logging/blob/logging-2.0.2/pax-logging-api/osgi.bnd#L103>
.
regards
Grzegorz Grzybek
pon., 27 sty 2020 o 13:47 Robert Varga <ni...@hq.sk> napisał(a):
> On 27/01/2020 09:26, Grzegorz Grzybek wrote:
> > Thanks for explanation. I told you - I've never used anything above
> JDK8...
> >
> > And I know this Jigsaw thing brings more trouble than benefits... Anyone
> of
> > you using JDK9+ modules at all? Or only making workarounds for them? :)
>
> Well, there is a project tracking JPMS modules in Central here:
> https://github.com/sormuras/modules :)
>
> OpenDaylight current development release does require JDK11 (for
> VarHandles mostly) and we do have a number of automatic modules and a
> few explicit modules.
>
> This is low-priority work as we are waiting for OSGi R7-compliant Karaf
> (due to
> https://blog.osgi.org/2018/02/osgi-r7-highlights-java-9-support.html and
> SCR annotation improvements). Once we have that, I expect the pace of
> JPMS adoption to pick up. With
> https://blog.osgi.org/2019/09/osgi-connect-revisited.html it may
> actually be useful in the future :)
>
> Regards,
> Robert
>
>
Re: Jdk9plus: materialize it or not
Posted by Robert Varga <ni...@hq.sk>.
On 27/01/2020 09:26, Grzegorz Grzybek wrote:
> Thanks for explanation. I told you - I've never used anything above JDK8...
>
> And I know this Jigsaw thing brings more trouble than benefits... Anyone of
> you using JDK9+ modules at all? Or only making workarounds for them? :)
Well, there is a project tracking JPMS modules in Central here:
https://github.com/sormuras/modules :)
OpenDaylight current development release does require JDK11 (for
VarHandles mostly) and we do have a number of automatic modules and a
few explicit modules.
This is low-priority work as we are waiting for OSGi R7-compliant Karaf
(due to
https://blog.osgi.org/2018/02/osgi-r7-highlights-java-9-support.html and
SCR annotation improvements). Once we have that, I expect the pace of
JPMS adoption to pick up. With
https://blog.osgi.org/2019/09/osgi-connect-revisited.html it may
actually be useful in the future :)
Regards,
Robert
Re: Jdk9plus: materialize it or not
Posted by Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for explanation. I told you - I've never used anything above JDK8...
And I know this Jigsaw thing brings more trouble than benefits... Anyone of
you using JDK9+ modules at all? Or only making workarounds for them? :)
regards
Grzegorz
pon., 27 sty 2020 o 09:23 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> napisał(a):
> I agree. We should be OSGi focus for this part as it's a core value of
> Karaf runtime: flexibility and smooth dep update.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 27/01/2020 09:20, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > Hi @Grzegorz,
> >
> > Well, JDK dropped JAXB and endorsing so it must be a bundle now, putting
> it
> > in the classpath is a workaround but not the other way around regarding
> JRE
> > rules now.
> > Now one of the liked features of OSGi is to be dynamic and updatable and
> > using the JRE breaks that by design and you don't have the OSGi
> integration
> > (bundle activator quite often) since it comes with the JRE so has the
> > lifecycle of the JRE.
> > This is why for me, if the boot classpath is more than OSGi container
> and a
> > small config reader utility (caricaturally karaf main), it is a design
> > pitfall.
> >
> > I'm also thinking to vendors doing custom karaf distros and on this side
> > they must be able to be secured and use the same distro on multiple JRE
> and
> > this is one issue which shouldn't require properties customizations IMHO.
> >
> > Hope it makes sense.
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> > <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
> >
> >
> > Le lun. 27 janv. 2020 à 09:01, Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com> a
> > écrit :
> >
> >> Hello
> >>
> >> I didn't work much with JDK9 (though JDK15 builds are already
> >> available[1]...). But maybe (if it's the only problem) `osgi.contract`
> can
> >> be added to system bundle via `jre.properties`?
> >>
> >> I mean - we're ~10 years after Xerces hell already and I hope JAXB and
> >> other "endorsed standards" can be handled at lowest possible level... I
> >> admire what spec bundles do, but it still (IMO) look like a workaround
> of
> >> some fundamental problem related to adjusting JDK itself to OSGi...
> >>
> >> regards
> >> Grzegorz Grzybek
> >> ===
> >> [1]: https://jdk.java.net/15/
> >>
> >> pon., 27 sty 2020 o 08:38 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> >> napisał(a):
> >>
> >>> It makes sense to me.
> >>>
> >>> Let me create Jira and work on an improvement about that.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the proposal !
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> JB
> >>>
> >>> On 27/01/2020 08:17, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >>>> Yep, also means karaf.main must not depend on these ones but
> >> technically
> >>> it
> >>>> sounds very feasible and saner in terms of architecture (launcher
> >>>> responsability vs container like one).
> >>>>
> >>>> Le lun. 27 janv. 2020 à 08:14, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> >> a
> >>>> écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Romain,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, basically, your proposal is to remove jdk9plus and "force" use of
> >>>>> spec bundles, right ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It makes sense to me, but it means that any spec has to be a bundle
> >> and
> >>>>> started in early stage of the boot process.
> >>>>> If it's possible, it makes sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards
> >>>>> JB
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 27/01/2020 08:11, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Playing with the r7 branch i tried to build an osgi-cdi distro but
> >>>>> stumbled
> >>>>>> upon the fact jdk9plus folder breaks resolution chain quite easily
> >> when
> >>>>>> switching of jdk.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Long story short, having annotation, activation (and potentially
> jaxb
> >>>>> but i
> >>>>>> didnt need this one ;)) does not enable to have them as bundle in
> the
> >>>>> same
> >>>>>> version - so to do dynamic updates too ;) - and they miss
> >> osgi.contract
> >>>>>> entry config.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I wonder if there is any rational to have them at all, sounds like
> >>> karaf
> >>>>>> can boot without them and just move to bundles all the logic
> >>> potentially
> >>>>>> needing them so no need to patch the classpath for java >= 9 IMHO.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Did I miss anything?
> >>>>>> Is it something to plan to clean up for karaf 4.3.0?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> >>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
> >>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> >>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> >>> jbonofre@apache.org
> >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
Re: Jdk9plus: materialize it or not
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
I agree. We should be OSGi focus for this part as it's a core value of
Karaf runtime: flexibility and smooth dep update.
Regards
JB
On 27/01/2020 09:20, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Hi @Grzegorz,
>
> Well, JDK dropped JAXB and endorsing so it must be a bundle now, putting it
> in the classpath is a workaround but not the other way around regarding JRE
> rules now.
> Now one of the liked features of OSGi is to be dynamic and updatable and
> using the JRE breaks that by design and you don't have the OSGi integration
> (bundle activator quite often) since it comes with the JRE so has the
> lifecycle of the JRE.
> This is why for me, if the boot classpath is more than OSGi container and a
> small config reader utility (caricaturally karaf main), it is a design
> pitfall.
>
> I'm also thinking to vendors doing custom karaf distros and on this side
> they must be able to be secured and use the same distro on multiple JRE and
> this is one issue which shouldn't require properties customizations IMHO.
>
> Hope it makes sense.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>
>
> Le lun. 27 janv. 2020 à 09:01, Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> Hello
>>
>> I didn't work much with JDK9 (though JDK15 builds are already
>> available[1]...). But maybe (if it's the only problem) `osgi.contract` can
>> be added to system bundle via `jre.properties`?
>>
>> I mean - we're ~10 years after Xerces hell already and I hope JAXB and
>> other "endorsed standards" can be handled at lowest possible level... I
>> admire what spec bundles do, but it still (IMO) look like a workaround of
>> some fundamental problem related to adjusting JDK itself to OSGi...
>>
>> regards
>> Grzegorz Grzybek
>> ===
>> [1]: https://jdk.java.net/15/
>>
>> pon., 27 sty 2020 o 08:38 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> napisał(a):
>>
>>> It makes sense to me.
>>>
>>> Let me create Jira and work on an improvement about that.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the proposal !
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>> On 27/01/2020 08:17, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>> Yep, also means karaf.main must not depend on these ones but
>> technically
>>> it
>>>> sounds very feasible and saner in terms of architecture (launcher
>>>> responsability vs container like one).
>>>>
>>>> Le lun. 27 janv. 2020 à 08:14, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Romain,
>>>>>
>>>>> So, basically, your proposal is to remove jdk9plus and "force" use of
>>>>> spec bundles, right ?
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes sense to me, but it means that any spec has to be a bundle
>> and
>>>>> started in early stage of the boot process.
>>>>> If it's possible, it makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> JB
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27/01/2020 08:11, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Playing with the r7 branch i tried to build an osgi-cdi distro but
>>>>> stumbled
>>>>>> upon the fact jdk9plus folder breaks resolution chain quite easily
>> when
>>>>>> switching of jdk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Long story short, having annotation, activation (and potentially jaxb
>>>>> but i
>>>>>> didnt need this one ;)) does not enable to have them as bundle in the
>>>>> same
>>>>>> version - so to do dynamic updates too ;) - and they miss
>> osgi.contract
>>>>>> entry config.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if there is any rational to have them at all, sounds like
>>> karaf
>>>>>> can boot without them and just move to bundles all the logic
>>> potentially
>>>>>> needing them so no need to patch the classpath for java >= 9 IMHO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did I miss anything?
>>>>>> Is it something to plan to clean up for karaf 4.3.0?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> jbonofre@apache.org
>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>
>>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: Jdk9plus: materialize it or not
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Hi @Grzegorz,
Well, JDK dropped JAXB and endorsing so it must be a bundle now, putting it
in the classpath is a workaround but not the other way around regarding JRE
rules now.
Now one of the liked features of OSGi is to be dynamic and updatable and
using the JRE breaks that by design and you don't have the OSGi integration
(bundle activator quite often) since it comes with the JRE so has the
lifecycle of the JRE.
This is why for me, if the boot classpath is more than OSGi container and a
small config reader utility (caricaturally karaf main), it is a design
pitfall.
I'm also thinking to vendors doing custom karaf distros and on this side
they must be able to be secured and use the same distro on multiple JRE and
this is one issue which shouldn't require properties customizations IMHO.
Hope it makes sense.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
Le lun. 27 janv. 2020 à 09:01, Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> Hello
>
> I didn't work much with JDK9 (though JDK15 builds are already
> available[1]...). But maybe (if it's the only problem) `osgi.contract` can
> be added to system bundle via `jre.properties`?
>
> I mean - we're ~10 years after Xerces hell already and I hope JAXB and
> other "endorsed standards" can be handled at lowest possible level... I
> admire what spec bundles do, but it still (IMO) look like a workaround of
> some fundamental problem related to adjusting JDK itself to OSGi...
>
> regards
> Grzegorz Grzybek
> ===
> [1]: https://jdk.java.net/15/
>
> pon., 27 sty 2020 o 08:38 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> napisał(a):
>
> > It makes sense to me.
> >
> > Let me create Jira and work on an improvement about that.
> >
> > Thanks for the proposal !
> >
> > Regards
> > JB
> >
> > On 27/01/2020 08:17, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > Yep, also means karaf.main must not depend on these ones but
> technically
> > it
> > > sounds very feasible and saner in terms of architecture (launcher
> > > responsability vs container like one).
> > >
> > > Le lun. 27 janv. 2020 à 08:14, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > >> Hi Romain,
> > >>
> > >> So, basically, your proposal is to remove jdk9plus and "force" use of
> > >> spec bundles, right ?
> > >>
> > >> It makes sense to me, but it means that any spec has to be a bundle
> and
> > >> started in early stage of the boot process.
> > >> If it's possible, it makes sense.
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >> JB
> > >>
> > >> On 27/01/2020 08:11, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > >>> Hi all,
> > >>>
> > >>> Playing with the r7 branch i tried to build an osgi-cdi distro but
> > >> stumbled
> > >>> upon the fact jdk9plus folder breaks resolution chain quite easily
> when
> > >>> switching of jdk.
> > >>>
> > >>> Long story short, having annotation, activation (and potentially jaxb
> > >> but i
> > >>> didnt need this one ;)) does not enable to have them as bundle in the
> > >> same
> > >>> version - so to do dynamic updates too ;) - and they miss
> osgi.contract
> > >>> entry config.
> > >>>
> > >>> I wonder if there is any rational to have them at all, sounds like
> > karaf
> > >>> can boot without them and just move to bundles all the logic
> > potentially
> > >>> needing them so no need to patch the classpath for java >= 9 IMHO.
> > >>>
> > >>> Did I miss anything?
> > >>> Is it something to plan to clean up for karaf 4.3.0?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > >> jbonofre@apache.org
> > >> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > >> Talend - http://www.talend.com
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > jbonofre@apache.org
> > http://blog.nanthrax.net
> > Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >
>
Re: Jdk9plus: materialize it or not
Posted by Grzegorz Grzybek <gr...@gmail.com>.
Hello
I didn't work much with JDK9 (though JDK15 builds are already
available[1]...). But maybe (if it's the only problem) `osgi.contract` can
be added to system bundle via `jre.properties`?
I mean - we're ~10 years after Xerces hell already and I hope JAXB and
other "endorsed standards" can be handled at lowest possible level... I
admire what spec bundles do, but it still (IMO) look like a workaround of
some fundamental problem related to adjusting JDK itself to OSGi...
regards
Grzegorz Grzybek
===
[1]: https://jdk.java.net/15/
pon., 27 sty 2020 o 08:38 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> napisał(a):
> It makes sense to me.
>
> Let me create Jira and work on an improvement about that.
>
> Thanks for the proposal !
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 27/01/2020 08:17, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > Yep, also means karaf.main must not depend on these ones but technically
> it
> > sounds very feasible and saner in terms of architecture (launcher
> > responsability vs container like one).
> >
> > Le lun. 27 janv. 2020 à 08:14, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> a
> > écrit :
> >
> >> Hi Romain,
> >>
> >> So, basically, your proposal is to remove jdk9plus and "force" use of
> >> spec bundles, right ?
> >>
> >> It makes sense to me, but it means that any spec has to be a bundle and
> >> started in early stage of the boot process.
> >> If it's possible, it makes sense.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> >>
> >> On 27/01/2020 08:11, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Playing with the r7 branch i tried to build an osgi-cdi distro but
> >> stumbled
> >>> upon the fact jdk9plus folder breaks resolution chain quite easily when
> >>> switching of jdk.
> >>>
> >>> Long story short, having annotation, activation (and potentially jaxb
> >> but i
> >>> didnt need this one ;)) does not enable to have them as bundle in the
> >> same
> >>> version - so to do dynamic updates too ;) - and they miss osgi.contract
> >>> entry config.
> >>>
> >>> I wonder if there is any rational to have them at all, sounds like
> karaf
> >>> can boot without them and just move to bundles all the logic
> potentially
> >>> needing them so no need to patch the classpath for java >= 9 IMHO.
> >>>
> >>> Did I miss anything?
> >>> Is it something to plan to clean up for karaf 4.3.0?
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> >> jbonofre@apache.org
> >> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> >> Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
Re: Jdk9plus: materialize it or not
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
It makes sense to me.
Let me create Jira and work on an improvement about that.
Thanks for the proposal !
Regards
JB
On 27/01/2020 08:17, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Yep, also means karaf.main must not depend on these ones but technically it
> sounds very feasible and saner in terms of architecture (launcher
> responsability vs container like one).
>
> Le lun. 27 janv. 2020 à 08:14, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> a
> écrit :
>
>> Hi Romain,
>>
>> So, basically, your proposal is to remove jdk9plus and "force" use of
>> spec bundles, right ?
>>
>> It makes sense to me, but it means that any spec has to be a bundle and
>> started in early stage of the boot process.
>> If it's possible, it makes sense.
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On 27/01/2020 08:11, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Playing with the r7 branch i tried to build an osgi-cdi distro but
>> stumbled
>>> upon the fact jdk9plus folder breaks resolution chain quite easily when
>>> switching of jdk.
>>>
>>> Long story short, having annotation, activation (and potentially jaxb
>> but i
>>> didnt need this one ;)) does not enable to have them as bundle in the
>> same
>>> version - so to do dynamic updates too ;) - and they miss osgi.contract
>>> entry config.
>>>
>>> I wonder if there is any rational to have them at all, sounds like karaf
>>> can boot without them and just move to bundles all the logic potentially
>>> needing them so no need to patch the classpath for java >= 9 IMHO.
>>>
>>> Did I miss anything?
>>> Is it something to plan to clean up for karaf 4.3.0?
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: Jdk9plus: materialize it or not
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
Yep, also means karaf.main must not depend on these ones but technically it
sounds very feasible and saner in terms of architecture (launcher
responsability vs container like one).
Le lun. 27 janv. 2020 à 08:14, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net> a
écrit :
> Hi Romain,
>
> So, basically, your proposal is to remove jdk9plus and "force" use of
> spec bundles, right ?
>
> It makes sense to me, but it means that any spec has to be a bundle and
> started in early stage of the boot process.
> If it's possible, it makes sense.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 27/01/2020 08:11, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Playing with the r7 branch i tried to build an osgi-cdi distro but
> stumbled
> > upon the fact jdk9plus folder breaks resolution chain quite easily when
> > switching of jdk.
> >
> > Long story short, having annotation, activation (and potentially jaxb
> but i
> > didnt need this one ;)) does not enable to have them as bundle in the
> same
> > version - so to do dynamic updates too ;) - and they miss osgi.contract
> > entry config.
> >
> > I wonder if there is any rational to have them at all, sounds like karaf
> > can boot without them and just move to bundles all the logic potentially
> > needing them so no need to patch the classpath for java >= 9 IMHO.
> >
> > Did I miss anything?
> > Is it something to plan to clean up for karaf 4.3.0?
> >
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
Re: Jdk9plus: materialize it or not
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi Romain,
So, basically, your proposal is to remove jdk9plus and "force" use of
spec bundles, right ?
It makes sense to me, but it means that any spec has to be a bundle and
started in early stage of the boot process.
If it's possible, it makes sense.
Regards
JB
On 27/01/2020 08:11, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Playing with the r7 branch i tried to build an osgi-cdi distro but stumbled
> upon the fact jdk9plus folder breaks resolution chain quite easily when
> switching of jdk.
>
> Long story short, having annotation, activation (and potentially jaxb but i
> didnt need this one ;)) does not enable to have them as bundle in the same
> version - so to do dynamic updates too ;) - and they miss osgi.contract
> entry config.
>
> I wonder if there is any rational to have them at all, sounds like karaf
> can boot without them and just move to bundles all the logic potentially
> needing them so no need to patch the classpath for java >= 9 IMHO.
>
> Did I miss anything?
> Is it something to plan to clean up for karaf 4.3.0?
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com