I'm not sure to understand what the benefit of having to deploy some
fragments and refreshing the framework instead of modifying the
jre.properties is.
Could you please enlighten me ?  I really fail to see the difference.

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 00:45, Christian Schneider
<[email protected]> wrote:
> You just have to install a fragment bundle that exports the needed packages.
> From this moment on the packages will be available  to the other bundles. So
> a low start level would
> be good but the user will get meaningfull error messages even when the
> bundle is not installed.
>
> So if we document that the users should install one of the two features
> there should not be much confusion.
>
> Christian
>
>
> Am 27.12.2011 00:15, schrieb David Jencks:
>
>> In principle this seems like a very promising idea.  I have never used a
>> fragment bundle hosted by the system bundle.  Can you outline how this would
>> work?  Would a system bundle refresh be needed to pick up the fragment?
>>  What would trigger the refresh?  When?  Only on the first startup or every
>> time karaf starts?
>>
>> I still thought the karaf-activator idea was proposed because there is no
>> way to make completely bundleized spec jars work due to either xerces or
>> xalan in the jre, so I'm not convinced that we won't need to always export
>> the spec packages.  However this would at least give us a fairly manageable
>> way to set the package versions on the specs.
>>
>> thanks!
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Dec 26, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> I am +1 for not exporting the packages by default in the system bundle.
>>>
>>> I also have an idea how we could create an environment for people who do
>>> not want the improved bundles.
>>>
>>> I propose that we provide two (sets of) features:
>>>
>>> 1. jaxb, stax, ... from jre
>>> These are just fragment bundles to the system bundle that export the
>>> packages. So by installing these bundles
>>> you get the current behaviour of karaf
>>>
>>> 2. improved jaxb, stax, .. like used for servicemix, cxf, camel
>>> These will make cxf and camel behave like expected
>>>
>>> The reason why I prefer this aproach over the current setup of simply
>>> exporting the packages from the system bundle is that it makes
>>> installing cxf and camel much easier and at the same time also allows
>>> people to use "pure OSGi" like Guillaume wrote.
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> Am 26.12.2011 16:04, schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> We have currently an issue in Camel and CXF with the default
>>>> jre.properties and some exported packages (like JAXB, etc).
>>>>
>>>> Currently, by default, the jre.properties exports all packages from the
>>>> JRE.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to propose a new approach:
>>>> 1/ remove packages with problem by default from the jre.properties
>>>> 2/ add a set of Karaf features (in bootFeatures by default) to install
>>>> bundles providing the packages (JAXB, etc)
>>>>
>>>> It's a quick workaround for next Karaf 2.2.6 and Karaf 3.0.
>>>>
>>>> We can find a more elegant solution. I have some solutions in mind:
>>>> - new properties in the jre.properties to define an "override" flag
>>>> - add a KARAF-INF/* files to define some behaviors (like overriding
>>>> system packages)
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to propose your ideas for this problem.
>>>>
>>>> Please:
>>>> [ ] +1 to remove the packages from the jre.properties and provide a set
>>>> of Spec/API features in Karaf
>>>> [ ] 0
>>>> [ ] -1 for that (please provide arguments)
>>>> Ideas (if you have ;)):
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Christian Schneider
>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>>
>>> Open Source Architect
>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>>
>
>
> --
>
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> Open Source Architect
> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>



-- 
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com

Reply via email to