Hi, if you are looking for a "standard" approach might want to look in to the ESA and Subsystem specs. Subsystems is the "standardized" way of deploying applications, though we worked on features quite long and regard it to be superior, because simplere though more effective. ESA reminds me to much of an EAR like packaging, but that's my 2 cents.
regards, Achim 2015-11-18 19:28 GMT+01:00 David Leangen <[email protected]>: > > Hmmm, I probably should have read further than the introduction. :-) > > Seems that the “no-sharing” principle in this spec is very strict. I can > see the advantage of features, assuming that features does not follow this > “no-sharing” approach. > > Guess I’ll have to continue my quest. > > Cheers, > =David > > > > > On Nov 19, 2015, at 2:58 AM, David Leangen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi! > > > > Still on my quest to figure out how to deploy my apps on Karaf (without > having to write features.xml files manually). I have been looking at the > Resolver Spec, but that seems to be more low-level than I’d like. Looks > like it is intended more for tool and framework developers. > > > > I did come across Deployment Admin, which seems more promising. > > > > One question: It seems that Deployment Admin is not available by default > on Karaf. What is the reason to favour the non-standard feature approach > over Deployment Admin? > > > > > > Cheers, > > =David > > > > -- Apache Member Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> Co-Author of Apache Karaf Cookbook <http://bit.ly/1ps9rkS> Software Architect / Project Manager / Scrum Master
