Hi Mike, karaf-full is supposed to be identical to the non-minimal karaf assembly from the old style assembly.
I have no objection to your proposal and I think it would be pretty trivial to make such an assembly using the karaf-assembly packaging. I'm curious about the environment you are in that would make it easier to import an assembly containing 150 bundles 50 of which you don't use than the 100 you do use. thanks david jencks On May 3, 2011, at 12:22 PM, mikevan wrote: > > mikevan wrote: >> >> For folks developing applications to deploy into Karaf on closed networks, >> it is not always feasable to be able to download all the optional packages >> for which we have optional console commands. I'm thinking web:, http:, >> obr:, and the like. >> >> I propse we create a new assembly for karaf that will include all of the >> optional bundles in the system directory for use in closed-networks. >> After talking about this topic on IRC it seems that many of us developing >> on closed networks have created work-arounds for this. Because there are >> so many work-arounds, perhaps its time to have a single Karaf-Max >> deployment that contains all of the optional bundles for karaf. >> >> If it helps, I can write it... :-) >> > > After further research, we currently have a karaf-full kar and assembly. > However, it doesn't look like karaf-full contains all of the optional > dependent bundles. What was supposed to go into karaf-full? Does that > suffice the use-case expressed above? If not, would it be appropriate to > have a new assembly addressing the karaf-max usecase? > > David J, What are you thoughts on this? > > > ----- > Mike Van (aka karafman) > Karaf Team (Contributor) > -- > View this message in context: > http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Karaf-Max-assembly-tp2895460p2895601.html > Sent from the Karaf - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
