Well if we decide this to be not included in 3.0 we don't need to use the pax-web features for karaf either.
regards, Achim 2012/2/2 Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> > +1 @3.1; I'm completely with Lukasz on this one > > @Ioannis trigger sounds also strange to me. Maybe "modifier"?; I don't > think that this will make much sense. Such situations would be rather > seldom (tbh I cant remember to encounter any of them till now) but maybe > lead to missuse. > > Kind regards, > Andreas > > 2012/2/2 Łukasz Dywicki <[email protected]> > > > +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 <[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/> > > >> > > > > > -- 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/>
