It wasn’t really a dev request per se, more of a curiosity question as to 
whether something along those lines was being considered as it would seem to 
make the implementations more easily consumable in a variety of OSGi 
environments.  My primary interest is in Karaf which is why I guess I targeted 
this list. Perhaps I should have thought that through better.

As for how something like that were structured, I don’t know really.  I only 
have passing familiarity with the Subsystem spec and that it sort of overlaps 
and extends what Karaf Features do, at least to my knowledge. My take is that a 
Karaf Feature commonly maps to an OSGi service spec. implementation, even if 
the names don’t match exactly

I readily admit that I could be grossly mistaken on that.

Scott

From: David Jencks <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Aries

I’m somewhat curious how you decided on this karaf list for a Dev request for 
Aries.
I’m more curious how a feature subsystem would help deploying an aries osgi 
service implementation. I haven’t looked for several years at how Aries sub 
projects divide up their artifact functionality, but I’d hope that all the spec 
functionality, and api, would be from a single bundle, with, possibly 
additional bundles for extensions.  If this is how a project is structured, how 
does a feature subsystem make deployment easier? If not, would it make more 
sense to adopt such a structure than to imitate it with a feature subsystem?
Thanks
David Jencks
Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Leschke, Scott 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I was wondering if there is a possibility that the Aries project would provide 
OSGi Feature Subsystems for each of the OSGi services they’ve implemented (with 
the exception of the subsystem spec of course).  There is a Karaf Feature for 
installing the Subsystem service so it would be nice if the remaining services 
were available as Feature Subsystems (or Karaf Features I guess but the former 
seems like a more neutral solution).

Scott

Reply via email to