Hi JB, Maybe we could reduce the scope about what you propose and simply until now maintain in a page the list of existing features karaf repository, their location and what they provide as features/components. I agree that maintaining "external" features repository into karaf project will be overkill and that should be the responsability of external projects (camel, pax, activemq, cxf, ....) to maintain them.
Regards, Charles On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Johan Edstrom <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/> > -- Charles Moulliard Apache Committer / Sr. Enterprise Architect (RedHat) Twitter : @cmoulliard | Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com
