I'm not really keen on dynamic stuff at this level. I'd rather split into smaller features and have users specify explicitely what they want (i.e. features-management would depend on features-core and management, etc...)
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 21:41, Ioannis Canellos <[email protected]> wrote: > Andreas, > > I think we are saying the almost the same thing :-) > Indeed if we use something like "optional" features it would be more easy. > So its a +1 from me. > > How do you think it should work in cases that optional features is not > installed (dependencies are not meet) but are fulfilled later? > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote: > >> mhm wouldn't it be easier to allow optional feature reverences? something >> like >> >> featue name=x >> feature version=1 optional=true featue-management >> >> this would require much less src modifications, no new commands. if >> requirements of the optional subfeatueres are not met we ignore it, if you >> install it directly, the old behaviour jumps in... WDYT? >> >> kind regards Andreas >> On Apr 5, 2011 7:11 PM, "Ioannis Canellos" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > -- > *Ioannis Canellos* > * > http://iocanel.blogspot.com > > Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC > Apache ServiceMix <http://servicemix.apache.org/> Committer > * > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
