Yes, and the point you raised are really important. We definitely need to find a good mechanism to ensure we don't break anything on existing karaf (well, maybe in production, we should just tell people to disable this feature anyway, as it should just be a call to features:removeurl somehow or modifying the correct configuration file). Also, pgp / signing and licensing are definitely good idea too, but I'm slightly less worried about that, as I think the main goal is ease of use at developement time and not really a provisioning mechanism to be used in production (where you want to test before installing stuff anyway, so you'd not use the global repo directly I think).
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 20:40, Jamie G. <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>> * >>> >> > -- 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/
