Hi David,
Agree, it's not the same purpose/scope.
Regards
JB
On 04/12/2013 07:00 PM, David Jencks wrote:
The scope of karat features is also much much smaller than subsystems since
karat features don't provide isolation.
david jencks
On Apr 12, 2013, at 9:54 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
The scope of karat features is also much much smaller than subsystems since
karat features don't provide isolation.
david jencks
On Apr 12, 2013, at 9:54 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> Hi Andrei,
>
> the first plan is to coexist.
>
> It's the same plan for P2 repositories.
>
> Features
Hi Andrei,
the first plan is to coexist.
It's the same plan for P2 repositories.
Features is the central and main provisioning for Karaf: we don't plan
to move to something else for now.
However, provide "bridges" between others systems (like subsystems and
P2) is interesting (both in the run
Jean-Baptiste
Can you please clarify what are karaf plans
as it relates to features vs subsystems?
http://blog.osgi.org/2012/06/core-release-5-and-enterprise-release-5.html
* will features be replaced by subsystems?
* will features continue as independent?
* will they c
Awesome,
thanks a lot Christian
Regards
JB
On 04/12/2013 09:29 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
I created the issue as https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-2266.
Christian
On 12.04.2013 09:03, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi Christian,
We have an option "overwrite" to define if the fil
I created the issue as https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-2266.
Christian
On 12.04.2013 09:03, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi Christian,
We have an option "overwrite" to define if the file should be
overwritten or not during feature installation.
I'm agree with you, we should log a
Hi Christian,
We have an option "overwrite" to define if the file should be
overwritten or not during feature installation.
I'm agree with you, we should log a warn message to inform the user if a
configfile or config (resulting to a file) don't overwrite the final file.
For the -f, I'm not
