Hi, I thought I would add briefly to the discussion my opinion as a relative newcomer to OSGi and Karaf, who is evaluating introducing it as part of our architecture at $WORK.
Whilst I can see the attraction of working on some kind of karaf-boot offering, my concern is that it would take resources away from other less exciting, yet more important, tasks such as documentation, ensuring stability and bug fixing. Although it's probably not a popular opinion, I would say that working through some of the (currently) 559 unresolved issues in Jira should take priority over any new endeavour. The flexible nature of OSGi and Karaf means that any karaf-boot solution would have to be either (a) very opinionated as to what technologies to use (DS, BP, etc), and therefore have a narrow target audience; or (b) highly configurable and consequently almost as complex as implementing a solution from scratch (I think OSGiliath exhibits this trend to some extent). To introduce Karaf, et al at $WORK, I have ended up creating a multi-module Maven project with a features module, a custom Karaf module, a business module with CDI/JPA etc. All of which can be made running quite easily (and could be further enhanced by creating a "karaf:run" type command,which sounds like what "karaf-boot-starter" is expected to do.). Having a "quick start" archetype which sets this up would of course be useful, particularly for those beginning with Karaf, but any realistic project will soon have to change or replace parts to suit their own requirements. In my opinion, having more documentation would provide more value, quicker. Best regards, Gary -- View this message in context: http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Karaf-Boot-tp4042437p4042534.html Sent from the Karaf - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
