To be clear the general concept I am ok with, I'm just reviewing potential issues that should be resolved.
As an enhancement to the concept, I also think that each entry in a repo file should include a license notice of some sort so that we can adhere to categories A, B, and X under Apache licensing rules: http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories Cheers, Jamie On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Ioannis Canellos <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thanks Guillaume, >> >> >>> If we agree on that, I think we should also trim down a bit the >>> standard descriptor to remove any non core-karaf related features >>> (such as spring, spring-dm, spring-web, and even war). >>> >> >> I like the idea of the repository file, however I don't see war and cellar >> fall back to this category (imho this is a solution fit for external >> projects and not sub-projects). This could be a great idea for providing >> functionality to the minimal distribution, but not on standard. > > TBH I'm with Guaillaume here (although I also share Jamies concerns > about stability). This is quite similar to what I've described on > another thread (extracting deployer (spring at least), management, > web, ...). This will allow us to keep the "karaf-kernel" as small as > possible. In addition, using this model we can release components > independent of Karaf. > > Kind regards, > Andreas > >> >> -- >> *Ioannis Canellos* >> * >> http://iocanel.blogspot.com >> >> Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC >> Apache ServiceMix <http://servicemix.apache.org/> Committer >> * >> >
