Hi JB, Thanks for the clarification, from the customer perspective I'd suggest sticking to the current set for the std. Apache Karaf distribution. The newer simplified version should be called as such. But as usual finding names for variables and products is the hardest part in IT, I'll leave this up to you ;) Maybe something like "light". Apache Karaf (TM) light
Something that indicates by name, that you won't get the full experience that you've been used to, when using Apache Karaf. Again, my two cents from the peanut gallery, just providing the idea of a customer experience. regards, Achim Am Do., 7. Mai 2026 um 14:05 Uhr schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré < [email protected]>: > Hi Achim, > > The discussion centers on the turnkey distributions we provide to our > users, whether they use them directly or build upon them. The goal is to > provide opinionated distributions that better align with specific use > cases. > > I strongly advocate for keeping "Apache Karaf" as the name for the standard > distribution. > > The main questions are: > > 1. Should the standard Apache Karaf distribution now use the "simple" > features service and Karaf services by default? (Note: users could still > switch to the "full" service via configuration). If so, should we still > provide a distribution powered by the "full" feature resolver and Pax > services as we do today? What should that distribution be named? > > 2. Alternatively, should the standard Apache Karaf distribution continue to > use the "full" features service and Pax services as it does today? If we > choose this, should we provide an alternate distribution powered by the > "simple" features service and Karaf services? What would we name that > version? > > Regards, > JB > > On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 12:01 PM Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > looks like Grzegorz isn't the only one late to the part ;) > > Let me be the advocatus diaboli: > > > > What are you trying to fix that needs fixing? > > How are our "customers" looking at a name change? > > What's in it for them? > > > > In case this is christal clear for everybody besides me, please proceed > and > > I'll go back to the peanut gallery. > > > > best regards, Achim > > > > > > Am Do., 7. Mai 2026 um 08:50 Uhr schrieb Grzegorz Grzybek < > > [email protected]>: > > > > > Hello > > > > > > Late to the party, but I was triggered by "pax" label ;) > > > I'm not sure I understand the brand "Karaf Pax"... is it about bringing > > > ops4j projects into/under Karaf umbrella? > > > > > > Speaking from Pax (Pax Logging, Pax Web, Pax URL in that order) - I > don't > > > have clear data about usage of these projects, but I'm sure these are > > > sometimes used outside of Karaf. > > > And after I got used to being one of the "old time" > > maintainers/releasers, > > > I can admit that somehow I drifted away from caps/reqs approach. Sure - > > > there are proper headers, but in my experience: > > > > > > - these are too incompatible with Maven artifacts (single artifact > > > version = several libraries - like spring-core, spring-beans, ...) > > > - in (my) practice (working on JBoss/RedHat Fuse since Fuse 6.1 > > running > > > on Karaf 2.3) it's more important to rely on particular version of a > > > Maven > > > artifact (assuming proper Export/Import-Package) than on vague > notion > > of > > > caps/reqs > > > - CVEs!!!! it changed a lot over last ~10 years and the problem is > > that > > > security scanners do not scan packages or caps - they scan Maven > > > artifacts > > > > > > I'm happy Karaf is evolving and I'm happy with any consensus that > emerges > > > ;) > > > > > > kind regards > > > Grzegorz Grzybek > > > > > > czw., 7 maj 2026 o 08:16 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Apache Member > > Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC > > OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer > & > > Project Lead > > blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> > > Co-Author of Apache Karaf Cookbook <http://bit.ly/1ps9rkS> > > > -- Apache Member Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> Co-Author of Apache Karaf Cookbook <http://bit.ly/1ps9rkS>
