Ahh, that gives a better picture. Cause the headline of this thread just suggest building another distro "Minimal Karaf distro", and till now you've always argued about a minimal/core distro.
With a really minimal karaf base distro a user could pick and choose > exactly what he wants. For example if you create a distro for an embedded > device or mobile device. Unless no one noticed, set advocatus diaboli on: If it's used for internals fine, but do we really need it? What is the benefit of it. I don't see much more value to it then what Ioannis already did propose for the minimal distribution. It'll skip blueprint as you propose and as far as I can estimate "Neil" would love seeing DS as basis ;) (but this is just an assumption, based on observing different mail and stackoverflow threads) set advocatus diaboli off! right now I'd stick to the idea of Ioannis with a minimal distribution based on DS. This should be sufficient and will keep the hassles of Trackers away. regards, Achim 2014/1/17 Christian Schneider <[email protected]> > Hi Achim, > > I am aware that the core "distro" is rather not meant to be downloaded and > used as is by users. I rather think it could replace the current > "framework" feature that we and others use to build distros. With a slimmer > framework kar we give people more freedom on how to assemble their distros. > For example if we do not include aries blueprint in framework people can > use their prefered version of blueprint. Currently upgrades of blueprint > are always tie to a change off the karaf version. > > At the same time providing the current standard and minimal distros will > not become more difficult as we would just move some bundles from > startup.properties into features. Like Ioannis wrote it is just a way to > make karaf more modular. > > We still can provide a core distro if people see value in it but it is not > my main concern to have this. > > So if we can agree that a framework feature without blueprint would make > sense I will try to make features core independent of blueprint. This > should not affect any other modules and gives us the basis for a slimmer > framework kar. > > Christian > > > On 16.01.2014 21:39, Achim Nierbeck wrote: > >> Hi Ioannis, >> >> no trouble with this kind of "minimal" cause it gives a real value on top >> of >> the OSGi framework. Otherwise I wouldn't know where the difference is >> between >> using a plain OSGi framework + pax-url and Karaf. >> >> >> regards, Achim >> >> >> 2014/1/16 Ioannis Canellos <[email protected]> >> >> If the distribution only starts framework, config admin, scr & pax-url >>> & karaf features, then minimal = net. >>> >>> -- >>> Ioannis Canellos >>> >>> Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com >>> Twitter: iocanel >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architect > http://www.talend.com > > -- 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/>
