Cloud distro will have exactly the same features and functionalities as Karaf "PAX": the feature resolver is as the full one but not using the rep/cap (just reading the features XML without guessing resolution). So, users don't have to re-assemble at all: the resolution is still at runtime but without using cap/req (it's basically like it was in Karaf 2.x kind of).
Regards JB On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 10:53 PM Łukasz Dywicki <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > Why not keeping just these two: > - Apache Karaf > - Apache Karaf Integration (or Mix as Jammie suggested) > > Having a minimal distro with shell (without ssh), OSGi + logging isn't a > bad idea. That's how OSGi framework usually starts. Still, given how > many APIs nowadays apps need, I doubt if it will be used beyond a dry run. > There is bunch of variants for many of OSGi specs, some of them coming > from Eclipse, some from ASF and some from PAX. For example http service > can be pax-web, felix-http (or its servlet bridge), or equinox (http or > servlet bridge). I don't think its possible to create a variant for each > ecosystem, as number of combinations may grow faster than we can > supply them. > Having atomic features which Jean mentioned in other thread should > really help users who need to assembly their own distribution with bits > and pieces they like and work with. > > The "Cloud" distro with static resolver is basically unusable without > re-assembling it with user application. So its better to keep it as > documentation / example rather than a release artifact. > > Best regards, > Łukasz Dywicki > > On 5/6/26 21:57, Jamie G. wrote: > > - Karaf PAX > > - Karaf > > - Karaf Mix > > > > (easy to see it's a semi continuation of servicemix). > > > > --Jamie > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 2:28 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Maybe bus instead of orchestration which has 2-3 other meanings in > nowdays > >> world? > >> > >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog > >> <https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog < > https://rmannibucau.github.io/> | Old > >> Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github > >> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn > >> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > >> < > https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064 > > > >> Javaccino founder (Java/.NET service - contact via linkedin) > >> > >> Le mer. 6 mai 2026, 18:06, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I understand the reasoning behind those names. My main priority is > ensuring > >>> that the names are explicit and that "Karaf Cloud" wouldn't be > >>> misinterpreted by our users. > >>> > >>> That being said, I still have a slight preference for the following: > >>> - Karaf PAX > >>> - Karaf > >>> - Karaf Orchestration > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> JB > >>> > >>> On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 4:25 PM Francois Papon < > >>> [email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> My thoughts was that > >>>> > >>>> - Karaf OSGi => OSGi is used internaly and by users > >>>> > >>>> - Karaf Cloud => OSGi is used internaly only and not by userrs > >>>> > >>>> The name "Cloud" was because it's focused on immutable resolver at > build > >>>> time but I am ok with the others proposals. > >>>> > >>>> regards, > >>>> > >>>> François > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> > >>>> Le 06/05/2026 à 15:32, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit : > >>>>> 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 > >>>>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >
