Hi David,
> I assume you are talking about the instructions for custom distributions here: > > http://karaf.apache.org/manual/2.2.0/developers-guide/custom-distribution.html > yes, exactly > The process described here is hideously complex compared to what I'm > proposing. To keep it available we need to keep the add-features-to-repo > mojo. If, after comparing equivalent old and new style karaf assembly > projects, someone wants to keep it, fine. well, it might be complex but most persons I know a very aware of how to use the assembly plugin of maven on building a nice little distribution :) > Conceptually the main difference I see between old and new styles is that the > old style relies on unpacking an existing distro whereas the new style > currently asks you to copy the list of features and kars that were assembled > into the existing distro. I think I can set up an "uber feature" for each > distro so there's only one feature going in, so in either style there would > be exactly one artifact involved, but it might be a good idea to add an > "unpack existing distro" mojo so the karaf-assembly packaging can also unpack > something for you. In this case I think the new style would be equivalent to > the old style except you'd list the features to add as maven dependencies > instead of configuring them in the k-m-p plugin configuration, and you' leave > out 99% of the configuration. > > Have you tried setting up a project to do a new-style assembly? No I didn't yet, but will give it a try. I just realized this big change. regards, Achim > thanks > david jencks > > > On Apr 9, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
