Ok, Thank you for your answer. I'm understand your point of view. What I see by storing the bundles them self within the data grid is that could reduce the amount of configuration. Because cellar is a amazing in term of zero configuration overhead in simple topology (I didn't test it in complex) and integration with karaf philosophy.
Romain. 2012/6/27 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > Hi Romain, > > Cellar supports both features and bundles "sharing" by leveraging > Hazelcast. However, the features and bundles itself are not stored in the > data grid, it's the information relative to the bundles/features (location, > state, etc). > > The features/bundles are still resolved on a Maven repository, Cellar sync > the installation "order" to the different node. > > If you are looking for more a repository, it's the purpose of Karaf Cave. > > I think that storing the bundles/features themself in the grid could be > very painful, especially depending the network available between the nodes, > etc. > > Regards > JB > > > On 06/27/2012 05:38 PM, Romain Gilles wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> I would like to know why the Hazelcast data grid is not used to share >> the features / bundle? >> It seems that you can use an OBR based solution or a distribution >> provisioning solution. >> Is there any constraints like memory usage... to prune datagrid as a >> bundle repository? >> >> Romain. >> > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > >
