Karaf is complete atomic and standalone OSGi container.
It should run by itself (and it's still the case).
I think it's more logic for the projects to be build on top. Anyway, I'm
not against this new change as it could get life easy in the project.
David, did you launch a thread in the past on this mailing list, or
updated a wiki page describing this new philosophy ? Sorry if the
question is stupid, maybe I missed some messages, but I don't remember
lot of discussion on these changes.
Let me make some try to have a better understanding. Anyway, I didn't
see any change on the manual around the "Karaf Custom Distribution"
section. It should be introduce and described in the manual.
I will do that regarding my tests on ServiceMix.
Thanks
Regards
JB
On 04/08/2011 09:15 PM, David Jencks wrote:
I'd like to suggest that it would be more appropriate for other projects such
as servicemix to have one or more karaf-assembly packaging projects similar to
the apache-karaf-framework or apache-karaf-full assemblies but including
exactly the content wanted, rather than starting with a distributed karaf
server and modifying it. That was more or less the point of introcuding the
karaf-assembly packaging.
This is a pretty dramatic change in philosophy of what karaf is and how to use
it, but I think it is easier to use and a lot more flexible. I think of karaf
more as a way to construct servers rather than as a particular set of content
in a server.
thanks
david jencks
On Apr 8, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Before, I will check the impact on some other projects, especially around the
groupId/artifactId used.
We made a mistake by changing the groupId/artifactId of features, I don't wanna
to have the same issue with the distribution assemblies.
Projects like ServiceMix use the Karaf distribution in their own assembly. At
least, we need to document the new Mojo, the new distro, etc.
I'm gonna make some tests with ServiceMix and I will keep you posted.
Regards
JB
On 04/08/2011 07:45 PM, David Jencks wrote:
I'd like to suggest that we remove the old assemblies/apache-karaf and use
instead the assemblies/apache-karaf-minimal and apache-karaf-full assemblies
constructed using the new mojos. I think we can also remove a lot of mojos
from the karaf-maven-plugin.
With the exception of some configuration files, legal files, the demo files,
and the inclusion of o.a.k.shell.ssh in the old minimal assembly by error, the
contents of the corresponding new and old assemblies are the same. A few more
bundles start in the newer servers but I think these are errors similar to the
inclusion of ssh in the minimal assemblies. It would be great if someone more
familiar with karaf history than I would investigate the differences and advise
about what to do. Basically I assume that all the bundles in system should be
started, so the choices are to remove the extra bundles from system or to
decide that indeed their presence is correct.
I'm not sure what to do with the demos. It's easy enough to write a kar file
that will unpack the demo content so it will look just as it does today, but
what's there strikes me as sort of horrible. I don't really expect a server
image to include maven projects that I can build to add functionality. I think
that it would be a lot more appropriate to have a customization maven archetype
that will generate a full-featured customization project, and one or two demo
features that can install prebuilt demo applications.
I'm thinking about how best to install legal files into assemblies and hope to
have a suggestion in the next few days.
The current apache-karaf builds some kind of source distribution. I haven't
looked into exactly what it is but suggest that the source distros produced by
the apache release profile are sufficient.
Related to this suggestion I think it would be great if some of the other
projects that use karaf such as servicemix, activemq, directory (?) tried out
the new packagings to build custom server assemblies. I will try to write up
some documentation and maven archetypes for this in the next few days.
thoughts?
thanks
david jencks
