Yep, indeed, we should avoid to duplicate the features descriptor if
projects already provide one ;)
That's why Cave as a KFR is really valuable: we will be able to "host"
features descriptors provided by a bunch of project and avoid to include
it in the Karaf distribution.
Regards
JB
On 08/31/2011 09:48 AM, Andreas Pieber wrote:
I like the idea! Maybe we can include the "original" pax-web features file
then?
Kind regards,
Andreas
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:56, Jean-Baptiste Onofré<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi David,
good questions.
I think it could have sense to have a karaf-spring features XML containing
only the Spring features, especially with Cave acting as a Karaf Features
Repository (KFR).
It means that the standard feature will contain:
- obr
- http
- war
- wrapper
- config
- jetty
- http-whiteboard
- kar
- webconsole
- ssh
- management
- scheduler
- eventadmin
- jasypt-encryption
In that case, we could also provide a karaf-webcontainer features XML
gathering http, war, http-whiteboard features.
The standard will contain only pure Karaf core features. I would also
rename "standard" to "core", as I'm not sure that standard means really
something ;)
WDYT ?
Regards
JB
On 08/31/2011 08:51 AM, David Jencks wrote:
I keep wondering how "standard" the spring features are and wonder if they
would be better in a separate "spring" feature repository. Thoughts?
(I'm thinking trunk only)
thanks
david jencks
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[email protected]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[email protected]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
