I assume you are talking about the instructions for custom distributions here:
http://karaf.apache.org/manual/2.2.0/developers-guide/custom-distribution.html The process described here is hideously complex compared to what I'm proposing. To keep it available we need to keep the add-features-to-repo mojo. If, after comparing equivalent old and new style karaf assembly projects, someone wants to keep it, fine. Conceptually the main difference I see between old and new styles is that the old style relies on unpacking an existing distro whereas the new style currently asks you to copy the list of features and kars that were assembled into the existing distro. I think I can set up an "uber feature" for each distro so there's only one feature going in, so in either style there would be exactly one artifact involved, but it might be a good idea to add an "unpack existing distro" mojo so the karaf-assembly packaging can also unpack something for you. In this case I think the new style would be equivalent to the old style except you'd list the features to add as maven dependencies instead of configuring them in the k-m-p plugin configuration, and you' leave out 99% of the configuration. Have you tried setting up a project to do a new-style assembly? thanks david jencks On Apr 9, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote: > Hi all my comments in-line > > regards, Achim > >> Karaf is complete atomic and standalone OSGi container. >> >> It should run by itself (and it's still the case). >> > > full ack, for just using camel you don't need anything else. This just > as a quick description on how I am using Karaf very often. > > >> 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. >> > > I did see some mail-threads touching parts of this, but somehow I was > missing the big picture beforehand. > IMHO for me this move was quite fast and a better discussion could have > been helpful. > > >> 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. >> > We surely need some very good documentation on this move, because we > already have a description for how to build a custom distributions and > people are already using it to make their own custom distribution. I > used to do this at my former company > and I'm sure the guys doing it now will get kind of upset if they have > to change a lot on how to make a custom distribution. > Just my 2 cent. > >> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >
