Hi Romain,
got your point, and it's a key feature in Cellar (easy to use, quick to
setup, etc).
I think it could be interesting to have a "Cellar storage" in the Cave.
Regards
JB
On 06/27/2012 09:41 PM, Romain Gilles wrote:
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 <j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>>
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
jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org>
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
