I don't think it's a big deal to use karaf feature web for 3.0 and pax-web feature for 3.1. As long as there is no difference from a user point of view I don't see any problems here.
Kind regards, Andreas 2012/2/2 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > The problem is that it means that we won't be able to use the Pax Web > features in Karaf 3.0, which is the opposite about what we discussed before. > > We can still use a "karaf feature" for web. > > Regards > JB > > > On 02/02/2012 11:11 AM, Łukasz Dywicki wrote: > >> +1 for doing that, -1 for pushing it into Karaf 3.0. As we discussed in >> one from previous topics we should start stabilizing trunk to finally >> prepare RC1. We lived so long without fragment features and I believe we >> can release 3.0 without it too. >> >> Best regards, >> Lukasz Dywicki >> -- >> Code-House >> http://code-house.org >> >> Wiadomość napisana przez Andreas Pieber w dniu 2 lut 2012, o godz. 09:42: >> >> 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<bcanhome@googlemail.**com<[email protected]> >>> >wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> when I tried to work on https://issues.apache.org/** >>>> jira/browse/KARAF-1017last<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/<http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/>> >>>> Committer& >>>> Project Lead >>>> blog<http://notizblog.**nierbeck.de/ <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
