Hi all my comments in-line regards, Achim
> Karaf is complete atomic and standalone OSGi container. > > It should run by itself (and it's still the case). > full ack, for just using camel you don't need anything else. This just as a quick description on how I am using Karaf very often. > I think it's more logic for the projects to be build on top. Anyway, > I'm not against this new change as it could get life easy in the project. > David, did you launch a thread in the past on this mailing list, or > updated a wiki page describing this new philosophy ? Sorry if the > question is stupid, maybe I missed some messages, but I don't remember > lot of discussion on these changes. > I did see some mail-threads touching parts of this, but somehow I was missing the big picture beforehand. IMHO for me this move was quite fast and a better discussion could have been helpful. > Let me make some try to have a better understanding. Anyway, I didn't > see any change on the manual around the "Karaf Custom Distribution" > section. It should be introduce and described in the manual. > We surely need some very good documentation on this move, because we already have a description for how to build a custom distributions and people are already using it to make their own custom distribution. I used to do this at my former company and I'm sure the guys doing it now will get kind of upset if they have to change a lot on how to make a custom distribution. Just my 2 cent. > I will do that regarding my tests on ServiceMix. > > Thanks > Regards > JB > > On 04/08/2011 09:15 PM, David Jencks wrote: >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>
