Well, there's one difference though. To install diagnostics, you need features. Management, ssh, kars and diagnostic are similar imho: it's nice to have, but isn't mandatory. If we can't get the minimal distribution to be somewhat different, we'd better get rid of it. But imho, it's a good thing to show how minimal can karaf be, so anything that can be installed later should be removed I think.
2012/1/3 Łukasz Dywicki <[email protected]>: > I don't think that removing diagnostic will be a good choice. It is only 61K > and it may stay as core service, similary to features. > > Best regards, > Lukasz > -- > Code-House > http://code-house.org > >> Agreed, just the console and basic commands could be enough I suppose. >> I think removing the console would make things more difficult as users >> won't be able to install additional features easily. >> >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 14:30, Jamie G. <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Sounds good Christian. >>> >>> Back to the larger theme, we appear to be making head way in reducing >>> the overall size of the distribution with the Aether issue reviewed >>> above, now to reducing convenience features in Karaf to make it >>> 'minimal'... >>> >>> The goal here would be to define the lowest possible set of features >>> to make Karaf useful, but very feature bare? >>> >>> In this case removing diagnostics, management, some deployer support, >>> and possibly even JAAS or instance admin could be considered. We could >>> go as far to reduce logging support as well. How bare bones a >>> distribution can we design while still being useful enough to not >>> cause heavy frustration (if everyone has to immediately add back a >>> particular feature then we should probably not remove it). >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jamie >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Christian Schneider >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Especially for 2.x I can remove it. Currently I only use it to convert from >>>> maven coords to artifact. That probably will also make it easier to use the >>>> same code on karaf 3. So we could simply wait till aether finishes the move >>>> to eclipse and offers bundles. >>>> >>>> Christian >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 03.01.2012 13:59, schrieb Guillaume Nodet: >>>> >>>>> Well, I'm not convinced that adding 3 Mb to the base distribution just >>>>> for a completer is really worth it, especially in the stable 2.x >>>>> branch. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 13:56, Christian Schneider >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I just filed an issue with the aether project to provide bundles and will >>>>>> help to resolve this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Currently I am using aether in the 2.2.x branch already. But just >>>>>> internally >>>>>> and could remove it if we decide to not depend on it. I will >>>>>> also provide the code for the trunk in karaf but di not get it working >>>>>> till >>>>>> now so I did not yet commit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Christian >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 03.01.2012 13:48, schrieb Guillaume Nodet: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking at the code, we use org.ops4j.pax.url.maven.commons package, >>>>>>> but not really aether. >>>>>>> So it may be possible to embed only the packages needed and not the >>>>>>> full aether api. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alternatively, if we really need aether, it may be better to install >>>>>>> it as a real bundle and have it shared by pax-url-aether and the dev >>>>>>> commands. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 20:25, Christian Schneider >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The pax url dep came from me. I wanted to discuss this anyway. For >>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> do right now pax url aether is not absolutely necessary. So I could >>>>>>>> replace >>>>>>>> that with some own code. On the other hand it may be interesting to >>>>>>>> provide >>>>>>>> services in pax based on the aether api like get available versions of >>>>>>>> artifact. Perhaps even browse maven repos with some extensions. This >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> allow content assist for mvn urls. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So what do you guys think. Do we plan to use aether more or should we >>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>> rid of it again? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Christian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 02.01.2012 19:16, schrieb Jamie G.: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Running a quick diff on minimal and standard kits the largest >>>>>>>>> difference appears to be that the standard distribution includes demos >>>>>>>>> and a few extra jars in the system folder. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> org.apache.karaf.region.commands-3.0.0-SNAPSHOT.jar -> 23K >>>>>>>>> org.apache.karaf.shell.config-3.0.0-SNAPSHOT.jar -> 43K >>>>>>>>> org.apache.karaf.shell.services-3.0.0-SNAPSHOT.jar -> 25K >>>>>>>>> org.apache.karaf.shell.ssh-3.0.0-SNAPSHOT.jar -> 38K >>>>>>>>> mina-core-2.0.3.jar -> 630K >>>>>>>>> sshd-core-0.6.0.jar -> 320K >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When the above is removed then this accounts for the 1Mb reduction in >>>>>>>>> size to become 'minimal'. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Looking at the largest jars in the system folder we have: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2.3M org.apache.karaf.shell.dev-3.0.0-SNAPSHOT.jar >>>>>>>>> 1.3M osgi-3.7.1.R37x_v20110808-1106.jar >>>>>>>>> 2.5M pax-url-aether-1.3.5.jar >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All other jars are under a Mb, the largest of which are: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 367K org.apache.aries.blueprint.core-0.4.1-SNAPSHOT.jar >>>>>>>>> 120K org.apache.aries.jmx-0.3.jar >>>>>>>>> 104K org.apache.aries.util-0.5-SNAPSHOT.jar >>>>>>>>> 206K commons-jexl-2.0.jar >>>>>>>>> 470K org.apache.felix.framework-4.0.2.jar >>>>>>>>> 379K org.apache.karaf.shell.console-3.0.0-SNAPSHOT.jar >>>>>>>>> 630K mina-core-2.0.3.jar (Already cut from minimal) >>>>>>>>> 213K org.apache.servicemix.bundles.asm-3.3_2.jar >>>>>>>>> 320K sshd-core-0.6.0.jar (Already cut from minimal) >>>>>>>>> 529K pax-logging-service-1.6.3.jar >>>>>>>>> 332K pax-url-wrap-1.3.5.jar >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Out of all the above jars I have to wonder why o.a.k.shell.dev is >>>>>>>>> 2.3Mb in size, it's the second largest artifact in the kit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheesr, >>>>>>>>> Jamie >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Jean-Baptiste >>>>>>>>> Onofré<[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Guillaume, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I noticed that also, but I didn't find time to investigate why. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I will take a look tonight to make a diff between distributions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks !! >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 01/02/2012 06:17 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The size of the karaf distribution has doubled between 2.x and 3.x. >>>>>>>>>>> It's now roughly 10 Mb. >>>>>>>>>>> Is that really worth the new features that are now embedded by >>>>>>>>>>> default >>>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>>> I think at least the minimal distribution should be much lighter ... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>>>>>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Christian Schneider >>>>>>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Open Source Architect >>>>>>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Christian Schneider >>>>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de >>>>>> >>>>>> Open Source Architect >>>>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Christian Schneider >>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de >>>> >>>> Open Source Architect >>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com >>>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------ >> Guillaume Nodet >> ------------------------ >> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >> ------------------------ >> Open Source SOA >> http://fusesource.com > > > > > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
