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 >> >> >>
