David Jencks wrote: > > 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. >
If we talk in terms of the use-case presented, this would be an assembly for users who are developing on a closed-network. A closed-network in this case would be a network with no external connectivity to the internet. In the IRC room, several folks came up with specific types of clients they'd worked with that had a closed-network as defined above. Examples presented there included corporate clients like banks, although many customers with strong security would fall within that category. As users become more karaf-savvy, it is certainly forseeable that they would begin leveraging more of the optional packages that karaf-max would contain. For example, when I first started using Karaf, I had no idea what obr was, but now I use that set of functionality quite a bit, and have provided patches to increase the functionality of obr. Another example would be the pax-web packages which make it easier to deploy servlets into Karaf. A user using JMS would not necessarily care about that, however with many web-services moving to REST, having access to the optional http: and war: features would make lives easier. To extend the use-case to make it more understandable, I would assume karaf-max would be a development-only environment. After a user has developed an application using karaf-max, they would likely create a kar out of the files they have deployed as bundles. Or, in my case, generate a local maven repository containing those specific bundles and an applicatiom-specific features.xml file. In that case, the actual deployment would be done using karaf-minimal, and the kar or local maven repository. I hope this makes sense. ----- Mike Van (aka karafman) Karaf Team (Contributor) -- View this message in context: http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Karaf-Max-assembly-tp2895460p2895743.html Sent from the Karaf - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
