Hi,
Thanks everyone for your feedback.
Here's the latest iteration about distribution names, incorporating your
input:
- Apache Karaf: same as today ("full" features service, PAX services)
- Apache Karaf Minimal: same as today (Apache Karaf but with less boot
features)
- Apache Karaf Light ("simple" features service, Karaf services)
- Apache Karaf Mix (based on Karaf, with ServiceMix flavor, e.g. Camel,
ActiveMQ, ...)
Does it work for everyone?
Thanks!
Regards
JB
On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 3:43 PM Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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>
>
