I think this is getting into a lot of features we never wanted, starting with spring sounds even worse.
On Oct 18, 2012, at 18:51, "Jamie G." <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/>
