RE: Why is karaf so much easier to get working than older OSGi containers?

2017-04-17 Thread Pratt, Jason 
Count me in on this

-Original Message-
From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré [mailto:j...@nanthrax.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 12:40 PM
To: user@karaf.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why is karaf so much easier to get working than older OSGi 
containers?

Hi Brad,

I would be more than happy to restart the Karaf Boot PoC. But I was feeling a 
bit alone on this ;) I started several threads on the mailing list.

I fully agree with what you said and also Serge's comments.

I will restart/update Karaf Boot during the week. If you have any idea or want 
to contribute, please let me know, I will give you access to my repo !

Thanks
Regards
JB

On 04/12/2017 08:33 PM, Ranx wrote:
> I don’t think there’s been much work on Karaf Boot lately. I hope they 
> decide to pick that up again and just go with an opinionated way of 
> doing Karaf Boot development as Spring Boot does. For example, use the 
> PAX and Camel CDI as the mechanism of bootstrap and wire up and simply 
> leave other mechanisms alone. If one wants to use blueprint or DS then 
> go for it but Karaf Boot could just ignore it. That doesn’t deprecate 
> those other technologies as far as Karaf is concerned, it just means 
> that the subset or mindset of Karaf Boot would be CDI-centric.
>
>
>
> Brad
>
>
>
> *From:*Serge Huber [mailto:shu...@jahia.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 10, 2017 4:13 AM
> *To:* user@karaf.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Why is karaf so much easier to get working than older 
> OSGi containers?
>
>
>
> I think that Karaf Boot is also important to get people started 
> quickly. Or maybe even some kind of CLI interface and container integrations.
>
>
>
> I still find that building a new project with my own custom 
> distribution is a big more work than I would like.
>
>
>
> Not to say that I don't love Karaf, I'm using it in more and more 
> projects (4 professional and 2 personal !)
>
>
>
> cheers,
>
>   Serge...
>
>
>   Serge Huber
>   CTO & Co-Founder
>
>
>   T +41 22 361 3424
>
>
>   9 route des Jeunes | 1227 Acacias | Switzerland
>
>
>   jahia.com <http://www.jahia.com/>
>
>
>   SKYPE | LINKEDIN <https://www.linkedin.com/in/sergehuber> | TWITTER
>   <https://twitter.com/sergehuber> | VCARD
>   <http://www.jahia.com/vcard/HuberSerge.vcf>
>
>
>
>
>
>   > JOIN OUR COMMUNITY <http://www.jahia.com/> to evaluate, get trained and 
> to discover why Jahia is
>   a leading User Experience Platform (UXP) for Digital Transformation.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net 
> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> wrote:
>
> Hi Steinar,
>
> Great e-mail !
>
> I think Karaf just works thanks to combination of what you said: features
> and resolver, prepackage features, convenient functionalities (shell, 
> ACL, etc).
>
> I still think we should improve the dev experience providing samples in 
> the
> distribution (as started).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
>
> On 04/09/2017 08:37 AM, Steinar Bang wrote:
>
> I first encountered OSGi in 2006.  The place I worked at that time had
> (prior to my hiring) selected OSGi as the platform for server side
> components.
>
> The team I worked on extended this into the GUI space by creating an
> eclipse GEF-based IDE for data flows in the server system, where we
> integrated the server components into the eclipse instance for
> debugging.
>
> At that time it was a very promising technology, it was defined in a
> standard document that was actually readable, and it had (at that 
> time,
> if memory serves me right) one complete free software implementation
> (eclipse equinox), two commercial implementations, and one free
> implementation (apache felix) just getting started.
>
> For my own part I was attracted to the lego building block 
> possibilities
> of OSGi, and the fact that we were able to get the server components
> running inside eclipse and talking to eclipse GUI components by
> using OSGi services (even though what the server side components and
> eclipse used on top of OSGi services was very different).
>
> But... the problem with OSGi both then, and when I started looking at 
> it
> back in 2013, was the practicalities in getting all bundle 
> dependencies
> satisfied, and finding, and working around bundle version issues.
>
> In contrast to this, karaf has just worked for me (I took the plunge
> into learning karaf in the autumn of 2016).
>
>

Re: Why is karaf so much easier to get working than older OSGi containers?

2017-04-12 Thread Jean-Baptiste Onofré 

Hi Brad,

I would be more than happy to restart the Karaf Boot PoC. But I was feeling a 
bit alone on this ;) I started several threads on the mailing list.


I fully agree with what you said and also Serge's comments.

I will restart/update Karaf Boot during the week. If you have any idea or want 
to contribute, please let me know, I will give you access to my repo !


Thanks
Regards
JB

On 04/12/2017 08:33 PM, Ranx wrote:

I don’t think there’s been much work on Karaf Boot lately. I hope they decide to
pick that up again and just go with an opinionated way of doing Karaf Boot
development as Spring Boot does. For example, use the PAX and Camel CDI as the
mechanism of bootstrap and wire up and simply leave other mechanisms alone. If
one wants to use blueprint or DS then go for it but Karaf Boot could just ignore
it. That doesn’t deprecate those other technologies as far as Karaf is
concerned, it just means that the subset or mindset of Karaf Boot would be
CDI-centric.



Brad



*From:*Serge Huber [mailto:shu...@jahia.com]
*Sent:* Monday, April 10, 2017 4:13 AM
*To:* user@karaf.apache.org
*Subject:* Re: Why is karaf so much easier to get working than older OSGi
containers?



I think that Karaf Boot is also important to get people started quickly. Or
maybe even some kind of CLI interface and container integrations.



I still find that building a new project with my own custom distribution is a
big more work than I would like.



Not to say that I don't love Karaf, I'm using it in more and more projects (4
professional and 2 personal !)



cheers,

  Serge...


  Serge Huber
  CTO & Co-Founder


  T +41 22 361 3424


  9 route des Jeunes | 1227 Acacias | Switzerland


  jahia.com <http://www.jahia.com/>


  SKYPE | LINKEDIN <https://www.linkedin.com/in/sergehuber> | TWITTER
  <https://twitter.com/sergehuber> | VCARD
  <http://www.jahia.com/vcard/HuberSerge.vcf>





  > JOIN OUR COMMUNITY <http://www.jahia.com/> to evaluate, get trained and to 
discover why Jahia is
  a leading User Experience Platform (UXP) for Digital Transformation.



On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net
<mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> wrote:

Hi Steinar,

Great e-mail !

I think Karaf just works thanks to combination of what you said: features
and resolver, prepackage features, convenient functionalities (shell, ACL, 
etc).

I still think we should improve the dev experience providing samples in the
distribution (as started).

Regards
JB



On 04/09/2017 08:37 AM, Steinar Bang wrote:

I first encountered OSGi in 2006.  The place I worked at that time had
(prior to my hiring) selected OSGi as the platform for server side
components.

The team I worked on extended this into the GUI space by creating an
eclipse GEF-based IDE for data flows in the server system, where we
integrated the server components into the eclipse instance for
debugging.

At that time it was a very promising technology, it was defined in a
standard document that was actually readable, and it had (at that time,
if memory serves me right) one complete free software implementation
(eclipse equinox), two commercial implementations, and one free
implementation (apache felix) just getting started.

For my own part I was attracted to the lego building block possibilities
of OSGi, and the fact that we were able to get the server components
running inside eclipse and talking to eclipse GUI components by
using OSGi services (even though what the server side components and
eclipse used on top of OSGi services was very different).

But... the problem with OSGi both then, and when I started looking at it
back in 2013, was the practicalities in getting all bundle dependencies
satisfied, and finding, and working around bundle version issues.

In contrast to this, karaf has just worked for me (I took the plunge
into learning karaf in the autumn of 2016).

Or let me qualify that a little: since I started creating features for
my own bundles, as a part of the maven build, karaf has just worked for
me.

So what I'm wondering, is: why is karaf so easy when everything before
has been so hard?

Is it because there is something magical in the feature resolution,
compared to other way of starting OSGi runtimes?

Or is it just that karaf comes prepackaged with features for the pax
stuff (web, jdbc)? And that it is these prepackaged features that just
works?

Just some idle curiosity on a Sunday morning...:-)


- Steinar



--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org>
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com





--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbo

RE: Why is karaf so much easier to get working than older OSGi containers?

2017-04-12 Thread Ranx 
I don’t think there’s been much work on Karaf Boot lately. I hope they decide 
to pick that up again and just go with an opinionated way of doing Karaf Boot 
development as Spring Boot does. For example, use the PAX and Camel CDI as the 
mechanism of bootstrap and wire up and simply leave other mechanisms alone. If 
one wants to use blueprint or DS then go for it but Karaf Boot could just 
ignore it. That doesn’t deprecate those other technologies as far as Karaf is 
concerned, it just means that the subset or mindset of Karaf Boot would be 
CDI-centric.

 

Brad

 

From: Serge Huber [mailto:shu...@jahia.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 4:13 AM
To: user@karaf.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why is karaf so much easier to get working than older OSGi 
containers?

 

I think that Karaf Boot is also important to get people started quickly. Or 
maybe even some kind of CLI interface and container integrations. 

 

I still find that building a new project with my own custom distribution is a 
big more work than I would like.

 

Not to say that I don't love Karaf, I'm using it in more and more projects (4 
professional and 2 personal !)

 

cheers,

  Serge... 





Serge Huber
CTO & Co-Founder


T +41 22 361 3424


9 route des Jeunes | 1227 Acacias | Switzerland


 <http://www.jahia.com/> jahia.com


SKYPE |  <https://www.linkedin.com/in/sergehuber> LINKEDIN |  
<https://twitter.com/sergehuber> TWITTER |  
<http://www.jahia.com/vcard/HuberSerge.vcf> VCARD


  


 <http://www.jahia.com/> > JOIN OUR COMMUNITY to evaluate, get trained and to 
discover why Jahia is a leading User Experience Platform (UXP) for Digital 
Transformation.


 

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net 
<mailto:j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote:

Hi Steinar,

Great e-mail !

I think Karaf just works thanks to combination of what you said: features and 
resolver, prepackage features, convenient functionalities (shell, ACL, etc).

I still think we should improve the dev experience providing samples in the 
distribution (as started).

Regards
JB



On 04/09/2017 08:37 AM, Steinar Bang wrote:

I first encountered OSGi in 2006.  The place I worked at that time had
(prior to my hiring) selected OSGi as the platform for server side
components.

The team I worked on extended this into the GUI space by creating an
eclipse GEF-based IDE for data flows in the server system, where we
integrated the server components into the eclipse instance for
debugging.

At that time it was a very promising technology, it was defined in a
standard document that was actually readable, and it had (at that time,
if memory serves me right) one complete free software implementation
(eclipse equinox), two commercial implementations, and one free
implementation (apache felix) just getting started.

For my own part I was attracted to the lego building block possibilities
of OSGi, and the fact that we were able to get the server components
running inside eclipse and talking to eclipse GUI components by
using OSGi services (even though what the server side components and
eclipse used on top of OSGi services was very different).

But... the problem with OSGi both then, and when I started looking at it
back in 2013, was the practicalities in getting all bundle dependencies
satisfied, and finding, and working around bundle version issues.

In contrast to this, karaf has just worked for me (I took the plunge
into learning karaf in the autumn of 2016).

Or let me qualify that a little: since I started creating features for
my own bundles, as a part of the maven build, karaf has just worked for
me.

So what I'm wondering, is: why is karaf so easy when everything before
has been so hard?

Is it because there is something magical in the feature resolution,
compared to other way of starting OSGi runtimes?

Or is it just that karaf comes prepackaged with features for the pax
stuff (web, jdbc)? And that it is these prepackaged features that just
works?

Just some idle curiosity on a Sunday morning...:-)


- Steinar

 

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org> 
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Re: Why is karaf so much easier to get working than older OSGi containers?

2017-04-10 Thread Dominik Przybysz 
We have solved the OSGI quick start problem in another way in our internal
project, but it is perfeclty tied to our needs.

We have forked https://github.com/spring-io/initializr and customize it to
create poms, api and impl jars with configuration examples for each feature
(not karaf features, but conceptual features) that we need and all
dependencies added .

Now if i have to add new bundle, I just describe maven cordinates, package
and features. Feature example is rest, where I obtain blueprint file with
configured cxf exposing example service. Another feature is camel context
where example camel context is generated with some routes, producer
template and example beans.

2017-04-10 11:13 GMT+02:00 Serge Huber :

> I think that Karaf Boot is also important to get people started quickly.
> Or maybe even some kind of CLI interface and container integrations.
>
> I still find that building a new project with my own custom distribution
> is a big more work than I would like.
>
> Not to say that I don't love Karaf, I'm using it in more and more projects
> (4 professional and 2 personal !)
>
> cheers,
>   Serge...
>
> Serge Huber
> CTO & Co-Founder
> T +41 22 361 3424 <+41%2022%20361%2034%2024>
> 9 route des Jeunes | 1227 Acacias | Switzerland
> jahia.com 
> SKYPE | LINKEDIN  | TWITTER
>  | VCARD
> 
>
>
> > JOIN OUR COMMUNITY  to evaluate, get trained and
> to discover why Jahia is a leading User Experience Platform (UXP) for
> Digital Transformation.
>
> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Steinar,
>>
>> Great e-mail !
>>
>> I think Karaf just works thanks to combination of what you said: features
>> and resolver, prepackage features, convenient functionalities (shell, ACL,
>> etc).
>>
>> I still think we should improve the dev experience providing samples in
>> the distribution (as started).
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>>
>> On 04/09/2017 08:37 AM, Steinar Bang wrote:
>>
>>> I first encountered OSGi in 2006.  The place I worked at that time had
>>> (prior to my hiring) selected OSGi as the platform for server side
>>> components.
>>>
>>> The team I worked on extended this into the GUI space by creating an
>>> eclipse GEF-based IDE for data flows in the server system, where we
>>> integrated the server components into the eclipse instance for
>>> debugging.
>>>
>>> At that time it was a very promising technology, it was defined in a
>>> standard document that was actually readable, and it had (at that time,
>>> if memory serves me right) one complete free software implementation
>>> (eclipse equinox), two commercial implementations, and one free
>>> implementation (apache felix) just getting started.
>>>
>>> For my own part I was attracted to the lego building block possibilities
>>> of OSGi, and the fact that we were able to get the server components
>>> running inside eclipse and talking to eclipse GUI components by
>>> using OSGi services (even though what the server side components and
>>> eclipse used on top of OSGi services was very different).
>>>
>>> But... the problem with OSGi both then, and when I started looking at it
>>> back in 2013, was the practicalities in getting all bundle dependencies
>>> satisfied, and finding, and working around bundle version issues.
>>>
>>> In contrast to this, karaf has just worked for me (I took the plunge
>>> into learning karaf in the autumn of 2016).
>>>
>>> Or let me qualify that a little: since I started creating features for
>>> my own bundles, as a part of the maven build, karaf has just worked for
>>> me.
>>>
>>> So what I'm wondering, is: why is karaf so easy when everything before
>>> has been so hard?
>>>
>>> Is it because there is something magical in the feature resolution,
>>> compared to other way of starting OSGi runtimes?
>>>
>>> Or is it just that karaf comes prepackaged with features for the pax
>>> stuff (web, jdbc)? And that it is these prepackaged features that just
>>> works?
>>>
>>> Just some idle curiosity on a Sunday morning...:-)
>>>
>>>
>>> - Steinar
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> jbono...@apache.org
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>
>
>


-- 
Pozdrawiam / Regards,
Dominik Przybysz

Re: Why is karaf so much easier to get working than older OSGi containers?

2017-04-10 Thread Serge Huber 
I think that Karaf Boot is also important to get people started quickly. Or
maybe even some kind of CLI interface and container integrations.

I still find that building a new project with my own custom distribution is
a big more work than I would like.

Not to say that I don't love Karaf, I'm using it in more and more projects
(4 professional and 2 personal !)

cheers,
  Serge...

Serge Huber
CTO & Co-Founder
T +41 22 361 3424
9 route des Jeunes | 1227 Acacias | Switzerland
jahia.com 
SKYPE | LINKEDIN  | TWITTER
 | VCARD



> JOIN OUR COMMUNITY  to evaluate, get trained and
to discover why Jahia is a leading User Experience Platform (UXP) for
Digital Transformation.

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
wrote:

> Hi Steinar,
>
> Great e-mail !
>
> I think Karaf just works thanks to combination of what you said: features
> and resolver, prepackage features, convenient functionalities (shell, ACL,
> etc).
>
> I still think we should improve the dev experience providing samples in
> the distribution (as started).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 04/09/2017 08:37 AM, Steinar Bang wrote:
>
>> I first encountered OSGi in 2006.  The place I worked at that time had
>> (prior to my hiring) selected OSGi as the platform for server side
>> components.
>>
>> The team I worked on extended this into the GUI space by creating an
>> eclipse GEF-based IDE for data flows in the server system, where we
>> integrated the server components into the eclipse instance for
>> debugging.
>>
>> At that time it was a very promising technology, it was defined in a
>> standard document that was actually readable, and it had (at that time,
>> if memory serves me right) one complete free software implementation
>> (eclipse equinox), two commercial implementations, and one free
>> implementation (apache felix) just getting started.
>>
>> For my own part I was attracted to the lego building block possibilities
>> of OSGi, and the fact that we were able to get the server components
>> running inside eclipse and talking to eclipse GUI components by
>> using OSGi services (even though what the server side components and
>> eclipse used on top of OSGi services was very different).
>>
>> But... the problem with OSGi both then, and when I started looking at it
>> back in 2013, was the practicalities in getting all bundle dependencies
>> satisfied, and finding, and working around bundle version issues.
>>
>> In contrast to this, karaf has just worked for me (I took the plunge
>> into learning karaf in the autumn of 2016).
>>
>> Or let me qualify that a little: since I started creating features for
>> my own bundles, as a part of the maven build, karaf has just worked for
>> me.
>>
>> So what I'm wondering, is: why is karaf so easy when everything before
>> has been so hard?
>>
>> Is it because there is something magical in the feature resolution,
>> compared to other way of starting OSGi runtimes?
>>
>> Or is it just that karaf comes prepackaged with features for the pax
>> stuff (web, jdbc)? And that it is these prepackaged features that just
>> works?
>>
>> Just some idle curiosity on a Sunday morning...:-)
>>
>>
>> - Steinar
>>
>>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbono...@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>

Re: Why is karaf so much easier to get working than older OSGi containers?

2017-04-09 Thread Jean-Baptiste Onofré 

Hi Steinar,

Great e-mail !

I think Karaf just works thanks to combination of what you said: features and 
resolver, prepackage features, convenient functionalities (shell, ACL, etc).


I still think we should improve the dev experience providing samples in the 
distribution (as started).


Regards
JB

On 04/09/2017 08:37 AM, Steinar Bang wrote:

I first encountered OSGi in 2006.  The place I worked at that time had
(prior to my hiring) selected OSGi as the platform for server side
components.

The team I worked on extended this into the GUI space by creating an
eclipse GEF-based IDE for data flows in the server system, where we
integrated the server components into the eclipse instance for
debugging.

At that time it was a very promising technology, it was defined in a
standard document that was actually readable, and it had (at that time,
if memory serves me right) one complete free software implementation
(eclipse equinox), two commercial implementations, and one free
implementation (apache felix) just getting started.

For my own part I was attracted to the lego building block possibilities
of OSGi, and the fact that we were able to get the server components
running inside eclipse and talking to eclipse GUI components by
using OSGi services (even though what the server side components and
eclipse used on top of OSGi services was very different).

But... the problem with OSGi both then, and when I started looking at it
back in 2013, was the practicalities in getting all bundle dependencies
satisfied, and finding, and working around bundle version issues.

In contrast to this, karaf has just worked for me (I took the plunge
into learning karaf in the autumn of 2016).

Or let me qualify that a little: since I started creating features for
my own bundles, as a part of the maven build, karaf has just worked for
me.

So what I'm wondering, is: why is karaf so easy when everything before
has been so hard?

Is it because there is something magical in the feature resolution,
compared to other way of starting OSGi runtimes?

Or is it just that karaf comes prepackaged with features for the pax
stuff (web, jdbc)? And that it is these prepackaged features that just
works?

Just some idle curiosity on a Sunday morning...:-)


- Steinar



--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Re: Why is karaf so much easier to get working than older OSGi containers?

2017-04-09 Thread Christian Schneider 
I think it is a mixture of both. Since the start of karaf its biggest
advantage was that it has predefined features for popular building blocks
of applications.
You are completely right that the packaging of bundles to form a consistent
deployment was always the biggest hurdle in using OSGi.

 At the start these features simply defined a list of bundles to install.
Since then the feature resolver has become a lot more sophisticated
(largely thanks to Guillaume). It now uses the felix resolver with a few
extensions to build the optimal set of bundles for any combination of
features you install. Besides this karaf also comes with definitions of
system packages and other little tweaks that make it easier to use the
built in spec impls the jdk contains.

There are also other environments like bndtools that provide a very good
resolution of bundles but only karaf has the prepackaged features that make
it so easy to start.

Christian

2017-04-09 8:37 GMT+02:00 Steinar Bang :

> I first encountered OSGi in 2006.  The place I worked at that time had
> (prior to my hiring) selected OSGi as the platform for server side
> components.
>
> The team I worked on extended this into the GUI space by creating an
> eclipse GEF-based IDE for data flows in the server system, where we
> integrated the server components into the eclipse instance for
> debugging.
>
> At that time it was a very promising technology, it was defined in a
> standard document that was actually readable, and it had (at that time,
> if memory serves me right) one complete free software implementation
> (eclipse equinox), two commercial implementations, and one free
> implementation (apache felix) just getting started.
>
> For my own part I was attracted to the lego building block possibilities
> of OSGi, and the fact that we were able to get the server components
> running inside eclipse and talking to eclipse GUI components by
> using OSGi services (even though what the server side components and
> eclipse used on top of OSGi services was very different).
>
> But... the problem with OSGi both then, and when I started looking at it
> back in 2013, was the practicalities in getting all bundle dependencies
> satisfied, and finding, and working around bundle version issues.
>
> In contrast to this, karaf has just worked for me (I took the plunge
> into learning karaf in the autumn of 2016).
>
> Or let me qualify that a little: since I started creating features for
> my own bundles, as a part of the maven build, karaf has just worked for
> me.
>
> So what I'm wondering, is: why is karaf so easy when everything before
> has been so hard?
>
> Is it because there is something magical in the feature resolution,
> compared to other way of starting OSGi runtimes?
>
> Or is it just that karaf comes prepackaged with features for the pax
> stuff (web, jdbc)? And that it is these prepackaged features that just
> works?
>
> Just some idle curiosity on a Sunday morning...:-)
>
>
> - Steinar
>
>


-- 
-- 
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de


Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com

Why is karaf so much easier to get working than older OSGi containers?

2017-04-09 Thread Steinar Bang 
I first encountered OSGi in 2006.  The place I worked at that time had
(prior to my hiring) selected OSGi as the platform for server side
components.

The team I worked on extended this into the GUI space by creating an
eclipse GEF-based IDE for data flows in the server system, where we
integrated the server components into the eclipse instance for
debugging.

At that time it was a very promising technology, it was defined in a
standard document that was actually readable, and it had (at that time,
if memory serves me right) one complete free software implementation
(eclipse equinox), two commercial implementations, and one free
implementation (apache felix) just getting started.

For my own part I was attracted to the lego building block possibilities
of OSGi, and the fact that we were able to get the server components
running inside eclipse and talking to eclipse GUI components by
using OSGi services (even though what the server side components and
eclipse used on top of OSGi services was very different).

But... the problem with OSGi both then, and when I started looking at it
back in 2013, was the practicalities in getting all bundle dependencies
satisfied, and finding, and working around bundle version issues.

In contrast to this, karaf has just worked for me (I took the plunge
into learning karaf in the autumn of 2016).

Or let me qualify that a little: since I started creating features for
my own bundles, as a part of the maven build, karaf has just worked for
me.

So what I'm wondering, is: why is karaf so easy when everything before
has been so hard?

Is it because there is something magical in the feature resolution,
compared to other way of starting OSGi runtimes?

Or is it just that karaf comes prepackaged with features for the pax
stuff (web, jdbc)? And that it is these prepackaged features that just
works?

Just some idle curiosity on a Sunday morning...:-)


- Steinar