>From a high level this sounds good, however i share Ioannis, Guillaume, and Freeman's concerns as well.
I assume this would be targeting Karaf 2.4.x / 3.1.x? Cheers, Jamie On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Scott England-Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > What if it was first prototyped with Spring? Deployer, feature, and all. > Use that as a template then for migrating other non-core modules? > > Is this that much different than the karaf-webconsole project? > > *Scott England-Sullivan* > *blog*:sully6768.blogspot.com > *twitter*:@sully6768 > > On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:03 AM, Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I really like this idea of separate feature files. > And I think we really should at least give it a try. > I fully understand the "fears" of Ioannis, Guillaume and Freeman > cause as I tried to seperate the pax-web features from Karaf > I just stumbled over a couple of constraint I didn't see right > from the beginning. > Like Camel depends on the http feature, this feature also > provides Karaf specific commands and so forth. > I think it can be done and I'll try to work on this as soon as possible, > still I think we will find such shortcomings with other features, too. > > But if we stick to the way it is right now, we do get the feedback > it's not modular enough :) > > regards, Achim > > > 2012/10/18 Christian Schneider <[email protected]>: > > I think the goal to have separate feature files that are independent of the > > karaf version is good. > > Like Ioannis I am also unsure if it can be done right now. At least the > > recent karaf versions would not have allowed that. > > So before really starting this we should make sure we can deliver these > > independent feature files. > > > Christian > > > > On 10/18/2012 09:52 AM, Ioannis Canellos wrote: > > > The idea seems good at first glance, but there are things that we need > > consider. > > > In many cases a feature descriptor is not portable between major Karaf > > versions, and it also happens that it breaks between minor versions. > > > Even from Karaf 2.2.x to Karaf 2.3.x I've seen third party features break. > > So it may seem that most features could decoupled from the underlying > > version of Karaf, but practically this is not always the case. > > > An example: In the spring feature case, we also have the spring deployer. > > Where will the source of spring deployer will be hosted and which are > > going > > to be the versions of fileinstall and karaf that the deployer will be > > built > > against? > > > > > > > > -- > > Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC > OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> > Committer & Project Lead > OPS4J Pax for Vaadin > <http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home> Commiter & Project > Lead > blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
