TBH I'm a little bit curious how the structure of this would look like then? Sections in the features with "predefined" lables such as core and extension?
Kind regards, Andreas On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Ioannis Canellos <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that we need to make features a bit more dynamic. By dynamic I mean > to have a single feature that would install features-core by default and > features-management if all the dependencies are meet. > In the case that management bundles are not available at the time of > installation, we could have a listener that would listen when the management > bundles are installed and install the features-management bundles then. (I > hope that this wasn't very confusing). > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm just asking myself if it wouldn't be better to simply differ the >> features a little bit more having a features-core feature and a >> features-management feature. Right now this sounds much cleaner to me >> than defining optional parts with non-optional dependencies in one >> feature. WDYT? >> >> Kind regards, >> Andreas >> >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Imho, the minimal distribution should be made as thin as possible. >> > SSH is optional, though some features of the Admin service won't work >> > if it's not installed. The problem is that we have features with >> > optional parts that have non optional dependnecies and we haven't a >> > way to model that yet. >> > >> > For example, we could imagine installing the features-core bundle >> > without features-management, and only install features-management if >> > jmx has been installed. I think without that, it's quite difficult to >> > really minimize the dependencies. >> > >> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 09:19, David Jencks <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I spent some time making the framework kar contents match better with >> the minimal server from the old style karaf assembly and think there might >> be missing bundles. I'm hoping to convince everyone to move to the new >> style assemblies so I'm not concerned with actually fixing the old one but >> want to make sure that the following jars should be in the minimal server: >> >> >> >> Here are the bits of the mvn dependency:tree I think are more correct >> than the old style karaf assembly contents: >> >> >> >> [INFO] +- >> org.apache.karaf.shell:org.apache.karaf.shell.ssh:jar:3.0.0-SNAPSHOT:compile >> >> [INFO] | \- org.apache.sshd:sshd-core:jar:0.5.0:compile >> >> [INFO] | \- org.apache.mina:mina-core:jar:2.0.1:compile >> >> >> >> sshd-core and mina-core are missing from the minimal assembly >> >> >> >> [INFO] +- >> org.apache.karaf.features:org.apache.karaf.features.core:jar:3.0.0-SNAPSHOT:compile >> >> [INFO] | +- >> org.apache.felix:org.apache.felix.bundlerepository:jar:1.6.4:compile >> >> [INFO] | \- >> org.apache.karaf.shell:org.apache.karaf.shell.obr:jar:3.0.0-SNAPSHOT:compile >> >> >> >> bunderepository and karaf obr are missing from the minimal assembly. >> >> >> >> Should these 4 jars be in the minimal server? >> >> >> >> Other than this and a few config files I haven't sorted through yet the >> newer assemblies/apache-karaf-minimal appears to me to be the same as the >> old one. >> >> >> >> thanks >> >> david jencks >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Cheers, >> > Guillaume Nodet >> > ------------------------ >> > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >> > ------------------------ >> > Open Source SOA >> > http://fusesource.com >> > >> > > > > -- > *Ioannis Canellos* > * > http://iocanel.blogspot.com > > Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC > Apache ServiceMix <http://servicemix.apache.org/> Committer > * >
