On Tue, 2016-10-04 at 10:02 +0200, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache. > org> wrote: > > ...I don't know if Karaf has anything compared to crankstart, maybe > > there > > is or we could contribute it - which again would have a much larger > > outreach than Sling... > > > I agree with that but also with Ian that our provisioning model suits > Sling extremely well, it's powerful, concise and so much nicer to > write and read that the XML that Karaf (IIUC) forces you to use. > > Without having looked into the details my favorite option right now > would be to switch to Karaf, assuming it's better than Crankstart, > but > continue to use our provisioning model supported by an "invisible" > translator.
That sounds good to me. I would like us to clearly define what the switch entails and what do we get to keep: So here's my 'keep' list proposal: - provisioning model - same CLI arguments ( we can't break backwards compatibility ) - ability to consume an arbitrary version of Felix ( AFAIK Felix framework upgrades are tied to new Karaf versions ) - ability to produce JAR and WAR files And here's my understanding of what we 'get': - OSGi framework/startlevel/bundle management - launcher logic - plus all the features and extensions that Karaf has and we don't Also, a bit plus is that we'll be part of the larger Karaf community and we'll a slightly less exotic techonology stack. Feel free to correct these lists, but hopefully they are a good start towards making an informed decision. Thanks, Robert
