+1 for the idea. I am not very fond of the naming (fragment / host) it looks more like a trigger rather than a fragment.
Does it make any sense to support multiple hosts? On 2 Φεβ 2012, at 10:42 π.μ., Andreas Pieber wrote: > I really like the fragment idea. Actually I've encountered such situations > as you described already more than once :-/. But I think only extending > wont be enough; in addition it would be also required to remove/ignore > bundles from the host. > > Otherwise +1 > > Kind regards, > Andreas > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 09:30, Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> when I tried to work on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-1017last >> night I noticed that >> our features are missing a nice "feature". >> Following situation right now. >> >> The Karaf standard feature does contain the http, war, http-whiteboard and >> jetty feature. >> Those features do not only contain the pax-web and jetty bundles but also >> some extra >> benefits of Karaf, the http and web commands. >> >> AFAIR we decided once that it would be best that every project does take >> care of the their features, >> as Camel and CXF (AFAIK) have done so far. >> For the pax-web project I did this for pax-web 2.0 which includes those >> features named above. >> The thing that is missing in the pax-web-features file are the http and web >> commands. >> >> *My proposal: * >> Introduce a new features element called *features-fragment* >> The tag could look like the following: >> >> <features-fragment name="http-command" host="http"> >> <bundle ....> >> </features-fragment> >> >> this fragment is supposed to be extending the hosting feature to add >> additional bundles which >> are also installed by the features service when the hosting feature is >> installed. The features service >> could look for all features-fragments that are "bound" to the host >> features. >> >> I think just creating a feature that depends on the http features like the >> following >> >> <feature name="http-command"> >> <feature>http</feature> >> <bundle ....> >> </feature> >> >> is not enough and is actually also a regression of Karaf 3.0 vs. Karaf >> 2.2.x >> >> *Benefits: * >> This way we are able to easily adapt/extend external features with >> specialties needed in certain environments. >> Right now it would be that the external pax-web feature is extended with >> special Karaf commands. >> But I could also think this to be a nice enhancement for customers >> extending Karaf with their own features. >> >> Regards, Achim >> >> -- >> >> Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC >> OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & >> Project Lead >> blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> >> Ioannis Canellos FuseSource Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com Apache Karaf Committer & PMC Apache Camel Committer Apache ServiceMix Committer Apache Gora Committer Apache DirectMemory Committer
