Hello,
Why not keeping just these two:
- Apache Karaf
- Apache Karaf Integration (or Mix as Jammie suggested)
Having a minimal distro with shell (without ssh), OSGi + logging isn't a
bad idea. That's how OSGi framework usually starts. Still, given how
many APIs nowadays apps need, I doubt if it will be used beyond a dry run.
There is bunch of variants for many of OSGi specs, some of them coming
from Eclipse, some from ASF and some from PAX. For example http service
can be pax-web, felix-http (or its servlet bridge), or equinox (http or
servlet bridge). I don't think its possible to create a variant for each
ecosystem, as number of combinations may grow faster than we can
supply them.
Having atomic features which Jean mentioned in other thread should
really help users who need to assembly their own distribution with bits
and pieces they like and work with.
The "Cloud" distro with static resolver is basically unusable without
re-assembling it with user application. So its better to keep it as
documentation / example rather than a release artifact.
Best regards,
Łukasz Dywicki
On 5/6/26 21:57, Jamie G. wrote:
- Karaf PAX
- Karaf
- Karaf Mix
(easy to see it's a semi continuation of servicemix).
--Jamie
On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 2:28 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote:
Maybe bus instead of orchestration which has 2-3 other meanings in nowdays
world?
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog
<https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.github.io/> | Old
Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
<https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064>
Javaccino founder (Java/.NET service - contact via linkedin)
Le mer. 6 mai 2026, 18:06, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> a écrit :
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
