The advantage of a slimmer karaf is that we can reach some more people
who now use pure felix or equinox.
Karaf 4 will allow these people to taylor their karaf to be quite
minimal while it will provide the same features like karaf 3 for people
who need all karaf features.
Besides I had to come up with at least one disadvantage :-)
So I really think karaf 4 is a very good step in the right direction.
Christian
Am 21.06.2014 04:56, schrieb Ryan Moquin:
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]
<mailto:[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
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
