I am fine with switching to DS in general. Still I think it should make
sense to have the innermost core of karaf even independent from DS.
It does not cost us a lot as we only will have one module without DS and
gives people a little more freedom about what they can do.
For example in CXF DOSGi we went the same road. It used blueprint before
and we switched to plain OSGi API so people have maximum freedom how to
use DSOGi. There it costs even a little more as we have more setup than
feature core does.
Christian
On 17.01.2014 09:54, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
Ahh, that gives a better picture.
Cause the headline of this thread just suggest building another distro
"Minimal Karaf distro", and till now you've always argued about a
minimal/core distro.
With a really minimal karaf base distro a user could pick and choose
exactly what he wants. For example if you create a distro for an embedded
device or mobile device.
Unless no one noticed,
set advocatus diaboli on:
If it's used for internals fine, but do we really need it?
What is the benefit of it. I don't see much more value to it
then what Ioannis already did propose for the minimal distribution.
It'll skip blueprint as you propose and as far as I can estimate "Neil"
would love seeing DS as basis ;)
(but this is just an assumption, based on observing different mail and
stackoverflow threads)
set advocatus diaboli off!
right now I'd stick to the idea of Ioannis with a minimal distribution
based on DS.
This should be sufficient and will keep the hassles of Trackers away.
regards, Achim
2014/1/17 Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>
Hi Achim,
I am aware that the core "distro" is rather not meant to be downloaded and
used as is by users. I rather think it could replace the current
"framework" feature that we and others use to build distros. With a slimmer
framework kar we give people more freedom on how to assemble their distros.
For example if we do not include aries blueprint in framework people can
use their prefered version of blueprint. Currently upgrades of blueprint
are always tie to a change off the karaf version.
At the same time providing the current standard and minimal distros will
not become more difficult as we would just move some bundles from
startup.properties into features. Like Ioannis wrote it is just a way to
make karaf more modular.
We still can provide a core distro if people see value in it but it is not
my main concern to have this.
So if we can agree that a framework feature without blueprint would make
sense I will try to make features core independent of blueprint. This
should not affect any other modules and gives us the basis for a slimmer
framework kar.
Christian
On 16.01.2014 21:39, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
Hi Ioannis,
no trouble with this kind of "minimal" cause it gives a real value on top
of
the OSGi framework. Otherwise I wouldn't know where the difference is
between
using a plain OSGi framework + pax-url and Karaf.
regards, Achim
2014/1/16 Ioannis Canellos <ioca...@gmail.com>
If the distribution only starts framework, config admin, scr & pax-url
& karaf features, then minimal = net.
--
Ioannis Canellos
Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com
Twitter: iocanel
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com
