Skip to content

Conversation

rovarga
Copy link
Contributor

@rovarga rovarga commented Aug 30, 2025

Signed-off-by: Robert Varga [email protected]

Copy link
Member

@He-Pin He-Pin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

@He-Pin He-Pin added this to the 2.0.0-M1 milestone Aug 30, 2025
@pjfanning
Copy link
Member

@rovarga Could you give us an overview of how many changes are coming? We are trying to manage some releases and getting PRs with no description makes life hard for us.

@He-Pin
Copy link
Member

He-Pin commented Aug 30, 2025

Maybe do it in one PR, this one will need backport too

Copy link
Member

@pjfanning pjfanning left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Temporarily blocking until we know how many changes are coming in. I don't want to keep getting lots of small PRs with no description.
OSGI is not widely used by Pekko users and there is even an issue open suggesting that we remove OSGI support.
We also have:

lazy val distributedData = exports(Seq("org.apache.pekko.cluster.ddata.*"))

So org.apache.pekko.cluster.ddata prefixed packages are split across 2 different jars (cluster-typed and distributed-data). Do we need to move classes around (between jars) to avoid this?

@rovarga
Copy link
Contributor Author

rovarga commented Aug 30, 2025

Right, sorry about that.
I thought it was going to be just the pekko-pki patch, but I misread the state of my downstream prototype and testing is turning out more things.

So far I have found 4 issues:

  • the pki that is already merged
  • Fix pekkoImport() range #2111 , which needs to be adjusted for 1.2.x
  • this one
  • pekko-remote importing jdk.jfr without option (I am brewing a patch for that now)

So let me close this one down and I will raise a combined PR, figuring out the above comment about split packages as well.

@rovarga rovarga closed this Aug 30, 2025
@pjfanning
Copy link
Member

#705 is the issue where we are considering remove OSGi altogether. We can assume things are ok for now (that OSGi is still supported).

@pjfanning pjfanning removed this from the 2.0.0-M1 milestone Aug 30, 2025
@pjfanning pjfanning added this to the 2.0.0-M1 milestone Aug 30, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants