How about instead of separate distros it is separate profiles or configuration ’sets’ within one distribution tar.gz/zip/container? Pax vs Karaf services are really just a list of features.
My understanding is that the only difference between Karaf and minimal is the boot features. Seems like that could be a property and we could simply have different folders of the configurations defined — featuresBoot, feature repositories added at boot time, etc. That would be much easier to manage, document and maintain vs separate archives. -Matt > On May 7, 2026, at 9:36 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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> >>
