Aries Applications are pretty neat and have some great ideas, but currently the plan is that each application gets deployed into a separate isolation environment of some kind (this part isn't implemented yet). Unless that idea gets changed, they may be great for applications but won't be much use for assembling a server.
david jencks On Jul 19, 2010, at 9:14 PM, Chris Custine wrote: > You've definitely come across the big gap in functionality regarding the Uber > packaging. You are right about the deployment admin spec and the bundle > ownership issue was one of the issues that kept us from using it. Karaf > "features" were created to kind of fill that gap until something more > suitable came along, so even what we came up with has limitations. > > Spring DM has a packaging scheme, and the Aries project has another variation > called Applications:http://incubator.apache.org/aries/applications.html. I > think the Aries application concept is the best option for most uses, but I > am not sure how far along the implementation is. At one point we had > discussed adopting that implementation as a replacement for Features but I'll > let Guillaume give his opinion on that. > > Chris > > -- > Chris Custine > FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com > My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com > Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org > Apache Felix :: http://felix.apache.org > Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 20:26, Mark Derricutt <[email protected]> wrote: > Interesting, I just noticed that with having the <configuration> > blocks inside the feature file, they reset/overwrite any changes made > via the GUI when restarting. So I think I'll go away from sticking > default settings in there. > > I understand where you're coming from with the features being rather > static - I was then wondering what method people are generally using > for deploying applications into their runtimes. OBR? > Deployment-Packages? > > I like the idea of the deployment-package, having a single versioned > .dp file that contains all of our apps bundles for version X which > could be dropped into the ./deploy directory, but I had read somewhere > in the compendium that if you deploy via a deployment-package, then > the individual bundles can only be updated ALSO via a deployment > package ( I've not yet tested this method tho ). > > It seems there's several options all with pros/cons - would be nice to > see a "current best practice" doc... > > Mark > > > -- > Pull me down under... > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > > For the configuration, I'm not sure how to handle the changes, as the > > configuration in the feature is mostly an initial configuration but it > > could be changed by users afterward, so I'm kinda tempted to say that > > we would only register new properties and let existing ones as they > > are. >
