Yes, and I think it would make sense to have a subproject dedicated to having a ready to use webserver, such as tomcat, jetty or gemini. We can't really talk about Karaf as a web server, that's not what it is.
For OBR, I'm not talking about just the obr bundle, that would not make any sense, but Jean-Baptiste talked some time ago about having an distribution of Karaf targetet at having an OBR server with the help of RemoteOBR (see http://gnodet.blogspot.com/2010/09/remoteobr.html). I think the same apply to cellar. As soon as we want to give a personality to karaf, i.e. something build on top of Karaf, it makes more sense to have a subproject for that. Over the past months, I've expressed myself a number of time to make sure Karaf does not become a dumping ground for any OSGi stuff. For sure, other features should be able to be installed very easily using features xml descriptors, but that doesn't mean we should not provide specific distributions in other subprojects. On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:21, Ioannis Canellos <[email protected]> wrote: > Cellar is a feature, just like HTTP, OBR etc. I don't see any reason > treating it differently than the existing features (*which are optional but > provided*) in the core distribution. > > I am not against having it as a subproject, I just want it to be treat same > as the rest of the features (*which are optional but provided*). > > -- > *Ioannis Canellos* > * > http://iocanel.blogspot.com > > Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC > Apache ServiceMix <http://servicemix.apache.org/> Committer > * > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com Connect at CamelOne May 24-26 The Open Source Integration Conference http://camelone.com/
