I see the changes in the ActiveMQ to make it more “open” (didn’t know that was what it’s called). I like that much better. Too bad we can’t declare a requirement on another repository and not a full import. Perhaps we can enhance the feature repository format to allow for that? On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 7:37 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi James, > > I guess you mean "open" features (where features repo are used at > runtime) compared to "close" features (where features repo uses inner > <repository/>). > > The approach also depends of your deployment option. For instance: > > 1. when I'm using Karaf as a runtime, where I install several > applications, most of the time I'm using "open" features (via Cave > Feature Gateway or directly). > 2. when I'm using Karaf more as an immutable "box" (like on Docker), > "close" features or custom distribution is convenient. > > Generally speaking, I prefer "open" features repo, and eventually create > my own custom distro (as the "kloud" one). > > Regards > JB > > On 08/01/2019 12:42, James Carman wrote: > > I’m really not a big fan of features files pulling in karaf feature > > repository files. We avoid that at work and just have our features files > > refer to other features by name only (no versions and no repositories). > > That’s a more controlled environment, of course. What’s the “best > practice” > > for the more general care? It just seems dangerous for other folks to > start > > yanking in possibly incompatible feature repositories. > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:59 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> AFAIR, I already fixed ActiveMQ features XML. > >> > >> Let me try with ActiveMQ SNAPSHOT. > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> On 08/01/2019 07:35, Benjamin Graf wrote: > >>> Hi JB, > >>> > >>> that's the error of the ActiveMQ feature file I reported last year. The > >>> corrected feature file is not releases yet. It may also be a problem in > >>> the resolvement algorithm used by involved components mainly outside > >>> Karaf I think pax-url if I remember right. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Benjamin > >>> > >>> Am 8. Januar 2019 06:09:10 MEZ schrieb "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" > >>> <[email protected]>: > >>> > >>> By the way, the enterprise features repo is used in the standard > >> Karaf > >>> distribution, so it's weird that it works here. It's maybe a > >> combination > >>> of features. > >>> > >>> For the tracking I created: > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-6075 > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> JB > >>> > >>> On 07/01/2019 22:16, James Carman wrote: > >>> > >>> We are trying to build our own custom Karaf 4.2.2 distribution > >> and > >>> when we include the enterprise feature repository along with > the > >>> ActiveMQ 5.15.8 feature repository, we get an invalid > >>> org.apache.karaf.features.cfg file which includes > 4.2.3-SNAPSHOT > >>> versions of some of the boot features. I have created an > example > >>> project here: > >>> > >>> https://github.com/jwcarman/custom-karaf-example > >>> > >>> If you build it as-is, you'll see the problem. If you comment > >>> out the > >>> enterprise feature repo, the problem goes away. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> James > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet. > >> > >> -- > >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >> [email protected] > >> http://blog.nanthrax.net > >> Talend - http://www.talend.com > >> > > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
