Hi, I understand the reasoning behind those names. My main priority is ensuring that the names are explicit and that "Karaf Cloud" wouldn't be misinterpreted by our users.
That being said, I still have a slight preference for the following: - Karaf PAX - Karaf - Karaf Orchestration Thoughts? Regards, JB On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 4:25 PM Francois Papon <[email protected]> wrote: > My thoughts was that > > - Karaf OSGi => OSGi is used internaly and by users > > - Karaf Cloud => OSGi is used internaly only and not by userrs > > The name "Cloud" was because it's focused on immutable resolver at build > time but I am ok with the others proposals. > > regards, > > François > [email protected] > [email protected] > > Le 06/05/2026 à 15:32, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit : > > Technically, (using your name), both Karaf OSGi and Karaf Cloud are OSGi > > internally. > > > > Karaf Cloud looks a bit "weird" to me because it isn't cloud-specific. > > > > Mixing your proposal and Romain's proposal, what about: > > > > - Karaf -> Karaf PAX > > - Karaf Simple -> Karaf > > - Karaf Integration -> Karaf Orchestration > > - Karaf Minimal -> delete > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 1:47 PM Francois Papon < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> May be having : > >> > >> - Karaf > Karaf OSGi > >> > >> - Karaf Simple > Karaf Cloud > >> > >> - Karaf Integration > Karaf Orchestration > >> > >> I think tagging the standard distribution as OSGi will help to abstract > >> the OSGi part on the others distribution. > >> > >> regards, > >> > >> François > >> [email protected] > >> [email protected] > >> > >> Le 06/05/2026 à 11:12, Jean-Baptiste Onofré a écrit : > >>> Hi everyone, > >>> > >>> Currently, we provide 3 Karaf distributions: > >>> - Karaf > >>> - Karaf Minimal > >>> - Karaf Integration > >>> > >>> 1. Karaf > >>> This is our standard distribution, packaging the full feature > >>> resolver/service (supporting cap/req), sshd, deployers, diagnostic, > kar, > >>> wrapper, etc. > >>> That's the de facto most used distribution. > >>> > >>> 2. Karaf Minimal > >>> This is a very light distribution, packaging the full feature > >>> resolver/service, config, local shell console, ... Hot deployment, etc > >> are > >>> not packaged in this distribution by default. > >>> > >>> 3. Karaf Integration > >>> This is based on the Karaf distribution, adding Apache Camel, ActiveMQ > >>> (similar to what was Apache ServiceMix). > >>> > >>> Now, with the new feature service (simple resolver), and the Karaf > >> services > >>> (Karaf URL, Karaf Web, etc), I propose creating a new distribution > >>> packaging the simple feature service (instead of the full one, and > >>> providing Karaf services instead of Pax services. > >>> > >>> I have two questions for you: > >>> 1. Should we keep the Karaf Minimal distribution? I'm not sure this > >>> distribution is actually heavily used. > >>> 2. Should we rename Karaf as Karaf "Full" and use Karaf for the new > >>> distribution (the one with the simple feature service and Karaf > >> services)? > >>> Or should we keep the Karaf distribution as it is today and introduce a > >> new > >>> distribution "Karaf Simple"? > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> JB > >>> >
