Plus, if you just start up Karaf without deploying anything, you'll notice that it's memory (heap) footprint is very small. Just because there are a lot bundles, doesn't mean they are all loaded and in use.
It's hard to say something is a disadvantage when it results from something good. Karaf does have a little more overhead, but provides a lot in exchange. Why try to strip down Karaf when you could just run Felix and add what bundles you want to that. Ryan On Jun 17, 2014 3:25 AM, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi guys, > > I agree with Christian on the advantage, but not on the disadvantages, > especially in regards of the features provided compared to a framework. > > I don't think it's fair to compare Karaf with a framework. Karaf should be > compared with other containers, or even application server like WebSphere > which run with OSGi. Now, compare the footprint, overhead, etc between > Karaf and WebSphere, or even Karaf and Tomcat. > > So, we should not compare carrot and potatoes, it's not the same, not the > same purpose, not the same use cases. > > Just my $0.02 > > Regards > JB > > On 06/17/2014 08:06 AM, Christian Schneider wrote: > >> I have no experience with symphony so I can not compare. >> >> For me there are three big advantages of karaf over other OSGi servers: >> >> 1. Karaf provides a very nice environment for management of the server >> (Commands, Web interace jmx) >> 2. There are a lot of karaf features provided by karaf or external >> projects (CXF including DOSGi, Camel, ActiveMQ, Hibernate, Eclipselink, >> Openwebbeans, ....). So karaf already provides a feature set that is >> comparable to big Java EE servers or even better while still being >> pretty modular. >> 3. Testing integration with pax exam is very good so it is easy to set >> up a QA environment >> >> The one disadvantage of karaf I see is that it is quite big and complex >> in itself (compared with a plain OSGi framework). For example it >> currently needs blueprint which brings a lot of other dependencies in. >> Also pax url is quite big. So karaf needs a lot of bundles for its own >> "kernel". Luckily this will change for karaf 4. I experimented with it >> and was able to run a basic karaf with shell and some commands with just >> 13 bundles. The foot print in MB is not reduced much but the fewer >> bundles mean that you have less chances of something conflicting your >> own dependencies. >> >> Christian >> >> Am 16.06.2014 23:37, schrieb lionceau: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> To build a modular software. >>> >>> What are the advantages and disavantages of OSGi using apache Karaf vs >>> Symphony? and other modular softwares ? >>> >>> For me the best advantage is to use DOGSGi , what more ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/List-of-avantages-and- >>> disavantages-of-OSGI-Karaf-vs-symphony-tp4033549.html >>> >>> Sent from the Karaf - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> >> >> > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
