Just reading your response Guillaume; I'm not so sure if we really should create various distributions here. Instead I think this have to go hand-in-hand with a "feature-repository" where all subfeatures could be registered. That way we can update the submodules independent from the core Karaf container and require only our three distributions as they are now. The user downloads either a minimal, standard or full distribution (while I think standard and full are the same with the difference that you scale the standard distribution "up" and the full "down (as discussed in another thread by Mike and David)) and can install cellar, web or anything else via the feature repository. I don't think that we should differ here between a "clustering" and "non-clustering" solution in any other way.
Kind regards, Andreas On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > I think cellar could have irs own distribution of Karaf. That should > be easy to do using the plugin David is working on. But it would > always be very easy to install in a plain karaf using xml features. > Just like we have with web. > Downstream projects such as Geronimo may not be interested in > clustering or web apps, so it would make sense to have the code in a > separate subproject. > > On Wednesday, May 4, 2011, Ioannis Canellos <[email protected]> wrote: >> So what do you suggest? Add Cellar as a Karaf subproject and provide a >> Cellar feature in core Karaf? >> >> -- >> *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/ >
