Yes, we had a consensus in this way I guess ;)
Regards
JB
On 02/02/2012 11:44 AM, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
So basically we postpone the features-fragmen and the inclusion of the
pax-web feature for Pax web 2.0 to 3.1 of Karaf,
did I get this right?
regards, Achim
2012/2/2 Jean-Baptiste Onofré<[email protected]>
OK, so it means that this "fragment" feature could also be postponed to
3.1.
I'm ok with that.
Anyway, I'm gonna cut the karaf-3.0.x branch soon (tonight or tomorrow
morning).
Regards
JB
On 02/02/2012 11:22 AM, Andreas Pieber wrote:
+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<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
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[email protected]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
