You mean footprint in terms of what ? memory or filesystem ?
Actually both, but mostly filesystem, not that much in terms of memory.
Regarding the issue in blueprint (some are related to the
implementation, not the blueprint spec itself), I'm afraid we will have
similar issues in DS ;)
Regards
JB
On 01/17/2014 12:13 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
That is correct. Using blueprint does not block the user from using
other frameworks but blueprint has a quite big foot print. It has
several jars itself and also needs aries proxy. Besides that we had a
lot of blueprint or proxy related issues recently. So I really see a
benefit of changing to DS. ... I only hope DS does not have similar
issues :-)
Christian
On 17.01.2014 11:14, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi Ioannis,
Good point, but, for instance, if Karaf requires Aries Blueprint (only
for the namespace handler), it doesn't mean that we can't use another
Blueprint implementation (like Gemini). Pushing namespace handlers out
of the topic, it's already possible to use Gemini instead of Aries.
So, even if Karaf use Blueprint internally, it doesn't mean that you
can't use (from an user perspective) another implementations or
framework.
Regards
JB
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[email protected]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
