Good point .. but this also makes things harder to test as each release
of Karaf has to be tested with several versions of cellar as well as
each release of cellar has to be tested against several versions of Karaf.
Christian
Am 04.05.2011 12:07, schrieb James Strachan:
On 4 May 2011 10:51, Jean-Baptiste Onofré<[email protected]> wrote:
It makes sense to have sub-projects in Karaf:
- WebContainer (using Pax Web)
- EnterpriseContainer (using Aries, OpenJPA)
- OBR (using Felix BundleRepository, home mage stuff)
- Cluster (using Cellar/Hazelcast)
In that case, Karaf itself will be a very lightweight container.
Pro:
- Karaf itself is more clean and light
- Karaf dependencies are more easy to manage (the dependencies management
move to subproject)
Its also easier to manage release lifecycles with more granular
projects. e.g. Cellar is going to be under a state of flux and active
development for some time; whereas Karaf is much more stable& already
used in lots of projects.
We learnt the hard way on the ServiceMix project that separating out
the Kernel release from features-above-the-kernel makes things much
easier for folks managing their dependencies& release schedules.
(e.g. you might want to use Cellar in 2.x and 3.x versions of Karaf
for some time yet).
--
----
http://www.liquid-reality.de
