The etc content is not the same.
Le jeu. 7 mai 2026 à 17:38, Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Example:
>
> Use a cli flag and/or a setenv/env var to flip the ‘profile’ or
> ${karaf.etc}
>
> etc/ <— default ‘Karaf’ today configurations
>
> profiles/minimal/etc <— karaf minimal
> profiles/mix/etc <— karaf mix
> profiles/kservices/etc <— Karaf-based services
>
> This would allow for _all_ settings to be swapped in/out— cover system
> properties, encrypted properties, cfg files (aka CXF, jetty, etc)
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 2026, at 10:00 AM, Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > How about instead of separate distros it is separate profiles or
> configuration ’sets’ within one distribution tar.gz/zip/container? Pax vs
> Karaf services are really just a list of features.
> >
> > My understanding is that the only difference between Karaf and minimal
> is the boot features. Seems like that could be a property and we could
> simply have different folders of the configurations defined — featuresBoot,
> feature repositories added at boot time, etc.
> >
> > That would be much easier to manage, document and maintain vs separate
> archives.
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> >> On May 7, 2026, at 9:36 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Thanks everyone for your feedback.
> >>
> >> Here's the latest iteration about distribution names, incorporating your
> >> input:
> >>
> >> - Apache Karaf: same as today ("full" features service, PAX services)
> >> - Apache Karaf Minimal: same as today (Apache Karaf but with less boot
> >> features)
> >> - Apache Karaf Light ("simple" features service, Karaf services)
> >> - Apache Karaf Mix (based on Karaf, with ServiceMix flavor, e.g. Camel,
> >> ActiveMQ, ...)
> >>
> >> Does it work for everyone?
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 3:43 PM Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi JB,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the clarification, from the customer perspective I'd suggest
> >>> sticking to the current set for the std. Apache Karaf distribution.
> >>> The newer simplified version should be called as such. But as usual
> finding
> >>> names for variables and products is the hardest part in IT, I'll leave
> this
> >>> up to you ;)
> >>> Maybe something like "light".
> >>> Apache Karaf (TM) light
> >>>
> >>> Something that indicates by name, that you won't get the full
> experience
> >>> that you've been used to, when using Apache Karaf.
> >>>
> >>> Again, my two cents from the peanut gallery, just providing the idea
> of a
> >>> customer experience.
> >>>
> >>> regards, Achim
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am Do., 7. Mai 2026 um 14:05 Uhr schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré <
> >>> [email protected]>:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Achim,
> >>>>
> >>>> The discussion centers on the turnkey distributions we provide to our
> >>>> users, whether they use them directly or build upon them. The goal is
> to
> >>>> provide opinionated distributions that better align with specific use
> >>>> cases.
> >>>>
> >>>> I strongly advocate for keeping "Apache Karaf" as the name for the
> >>> standard
> >>>> distribution.
> >>>>
> >>>> The main questions are:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Should the standard Apache Karaf distribution now use the "simple"
> >>>> features service and Karaf services by default? (Note: users could
> still
> >>>> switch to the "full" service via configuration). If so, should we
> still
> >>>> provide a distribution powered by the "full" feature resolver and Pax
> >>>> services as we do today? What should that distribution be named?
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. Alternatively, should the standard Apache Karaf distribution
> continue
> >>> to
> >>>> use the "full" features service and Pax services as it does today? If
> we
> >>>> choose this, should we provide an alternate distribution powered by
> the
> >>>> "simple" features service and Karaf services? What would we name that
> >>>> version?
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> JB
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 12:01 PM Achim Nierbeck <
> [email protected]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> looks like Grzegorz isn't the only one late to the part ;)
> >>>>> Let me be the advocatus diaboli:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What are you trying to fix that needs fixing?
> >>>>> How are our "customers" looking at a name change?
> >>>>> What's in it for them?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In case this is christal clear for everybody besides me, please
> proceed
> >>>> and
> >>>>> I'll go back to the peanut gallery.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> best regards, Achim
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Am Do., 7. Mai 2026 um 08:50 Uhr schrieb Grzegorz Grzybek <
> >>>>> [email protected]>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Late to the party, but I was triggered by "pax" label ;)
> >>>>>> I'm not sure I understand the brand "Karaf Pax"... is it about
> >>> bringing
> >>>>>> ops4j projects into/under Karaf umbrella?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Speaking from Pax (Pax Logging, Pax Web, Pax URL in that order) - I
> >>>> don't
> >>>>>> have clear data about usage of these projects, but I'm sure these
> are
> >>>>>> sometimes used outside of Karaf.
> >>>>>> And after I got used to being one of the "old time"
> >>>>> maintainers/releasers,
> >>>>>> I can admit that somehow I drifted away from caps/reqs approach.
> >>> Sure -
> >>>>>> there are proper headers, but in my experience:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - these are too incompatible with Maven artifacts (single artifact
> >>>>>> version = several libraries - like spring-core, spring-beans, ...)
> >>>>>> - in (my) practice (working on JBoss/RedHat Fuse since Fuse 6.1
> >>>>> running
> >>>>>> on Karaf 2.3) it's more important to rely on particular version
> >>> of a
> >>>>>> Maven
> >>>>>> artifact (assuming proper Export/Import-Package) than on vague
> >>>> notion
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>> caps/reqs
> >>>>>> - CVEs!!!! it changed a lot over last ~10 years and the problem is
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>> security scanners do not scan packages or caps - they scan Maven
> >>>>>> artifacts
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm happy Karaf is evolving and I'm happy with any consensus that
> >>>> emerges
> >>>>>> ;)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> kind regards
> >>>>>> Grzegorz Grzybek
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> czw., 7 maj 2026 o 08:16 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>
> >>>>>> napisał(a):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cloud distro will have exactly the same features and
> >>> functionalities
> >>>> as
> >>>>>>> Karaf "PAX": the feature resolver is as the full one but not using
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>> rep/cap (just reading the features XML without guessing
> >>> resolution).
> >>>>> So,
> >>>>>>> users don't have to re-assemble at all: the resolution is still at
> >>>>>> runtime
> >>>>>>> but without using cap/req (it's basically like it was in Karaf 2.x
> >>>> kind
> >>>>>>> of).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>> JB
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 10:53 PM Łukasz Dywicki <
> >>> [email protected]>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Apache Member
> >>>>> Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
> >>>>> OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/>
> >>> Committer
> >>>> &
> >>>>> Project Lead
> >>>>> blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
> >>>>> Co-Author of Apache Karaf Cookbook <http://bit.ly/1ps9rkS>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Apache Member
> >>> Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
> >>> OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/>
> Committer &
> >>> Project Lead
> >>> blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
> >>> Co-Author of Apache Karaf Cookbook <http://bit.ly/1ps9rkS>
> >>>
> >
>
>
