Technically, (using your name), both Karaf OSGi and Karaf Cloud are OSGi internally.
Karaf Cloud looks a bit "weird" to me because it isn't cloud-specific. Mixing your proposal and Romain's proposal, what about: - Karaf -> Karaf PAX - Karaf Simple -> Karaf - Karaf Integration -> Karaf Orchestration - Karaf Minimal -> delete Thoughts? Regards JB On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 1:47 PM Francois Papon <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > May be having : > > - Karaf > Karaf OSGi > > - Karaf Simple > Karaf Cloud > > - Karaf Integration > Karaf Orchestration > > I think tagging the standard distribution as OSGi will help to abstract > the OSGi part on the others distribution. > > regards, > > François > [email protected] > [email protected] > > Le 06/05/2026 à 11:12, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit : > > Hi everyone, > > > > Currently, we provide 3 Karaf distributions: > > - Karaf > > - Karaf Minimal > > - Karaf Integration > > > > 1. Karaf > > This is our standard distribution, packaging the full feature > > resolver/service (supporting cap/req), sshd, deployers, diagnostic, kar, > > wrapper, etc. > > That's the de facto most used distribution. > > > > 2. Karaf Minimal > > This is a very light distribution, packaging the full feature > > resolver/service, config, local shell console, ... Hot deployment, etc > are > > not packaged in this distribution by default. > > > > 3. Karaf Integration > > This is based on the Karaf distribution, adding Apache Camel, ActiveMQ > > (similar to what was Apache ServiceMix). > > > > Now, with the new feature service (simple resolver), and the Karaf > services > > (Karaf URL, Karaf Web, etc), I propose creating a new distribution > > packaging the simple feature service (instead of the full one, and > > providing Karaf services instead of Pax services. > > > > I have two questions for you: > > 1. Should we keep the Karaf Minimal distribution? I'm not sure this > > distribution is actually heavily used. > > 2. Should we rename Karaf as Karaf "Full" and use Karaf for the new > > distribution (the one with the simple feature service and Karaf > services)? > > Or should we keep the Karaf distribution as it is today and introduce a > new > > distribution "Karaf Simple"? > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Regards > > JB > > >
