Christian, Very cool. I'm working on a technical spike and PoC today so will give it a whirl. I like that quite a bit.
Brad On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think Karaf is a lot easier: it's a different approach, different > topology. It's not the same use case/packaging. > > It's exactly what karaf-boot is addressing: you use the annotations, we > deal with the packaging (you just define what you want). > > FYI, the static profile exists since 4.0.0 (it came with Karaf 4 and > profile introduction) ;) > > Regards > JB > > > On 04/27/2016 09:08 AM, Christian Schneider wrote: > >> I used the static profile here: >> https://github.com/cschneider/Karaf-Tutorial/tree/master/tasklist-ds/app >> >> It allows to package a very slim karaf with your features. All bundles >> are directly referenced in the startup.properties. So there is no need >> for a feature service if your bundles are fixed. >> This makes karaf a lot easier to manage as you typically will not have >> refresh issues. >> >> The nice thing is that you can develop your application with normal >> features and decide about the packaging at a very late state. >> >> Christian >> >> On 26.04.2016 23:36, Brad Johnson wrote: >> >>> I looked at the profiles and static and find it interesting. I'll >>> have to work with it some. There's obviously a bit of a mind shift >>> there with the inheritance hierarchy. In my mind's eye I saw this as >>> something I'd run from a parent pom with a bunch of child bundle >>> projects but it would likely be better as an aside project separate >>> from the main build hierarchy itself. Which is fine. Decouples it as >>> a separate concern. Just a bit different than I'd imagined. >>> >>> I'll have to give it a swing. >>> >>> >> > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
