Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

You can download it from maven central : http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/karaf/apache-karaf-minimal/ 2016-03-18 19:49 GMT+01:00 Milen Dyankov : > Oh, got it now. Thanks for clearing this up. Btw, how do I get the minimal > distribution? > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Jean-Baptist

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

-1 With current codebase I must say that I can not support this idea. DS is more limited than blueprint and custom activators we currently have. I already tried to wire some things with DS and it is not possible - ie. making JAAS realm with login modules inside is not possible. Starting thread f

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

The shell core headers don't import blueprint, and the shell feature doesn't depend to the blueprint feature. What you see comes from the shell-compat feature which brings the "old" blueprint command extender (you are right, for backward compatibility, this feature is installed by default in t

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

2016-03-18 13:38 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Nodet : > I agree with Achim and Lukasz. > > Here are the advantages of the current solution: > > 1/ No additional dependency. One thing that I really care about is that > the bundles in Karaf are independent. I.e. they do not rely on an > extender. The ben

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

It's also available on mirror: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.lua/karaf/4.0.4/apache-karaf-minimal-4.0.4.tar.gz I will add these links on the website. Regards JB On 03/18/2016 07:53 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: You can download it from maven central : http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apac

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

+1 17 mar 2016 16:44 "Christian Schneider" napisał(a): > We currently use some custom Activator base classes to wire the karaf > bundles. The goal of this was to avoid depending on blueprint > as it is a quite heavy dependency and makes it harder to use a different > blueprint impl or version. >

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

I agree with Achim and Lukasz. Here are the advantages of the current solution: 1/ No additional dependency. One thing that I really care about is that the bundles in Karaf are independent. I.e. they do not rely on an extender. The benefit is that you can upgrade the bundles independently and

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

Oh, got it now. Thanks for clearing this up. Btw, how do I get the minimal distribution? On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > The shell core headers don't import blueprint, and the shell feature > doesn't depend to the blueprint feature. > > What you see comes from the

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

-1: I don't really see any real benefit In changing the current approach to DS. There are minor pros and cons in each approach, but the less external dependencies the better. Also less is more :-) -- *Ioannis Canellos* *Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com * *Twitter:

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

That's the reason we didn't change to DS in the first place ... so I don't see any reason for changing. -1 2016-03-17 16:58 GMT+01:00 Morgan : > I only see one problem. > JB wants to keep a normal/default distro where scr could have a place in > the distro and also a minimal distro without scr s

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

This is what I mean: karaf@root()> bundle:info 44 Apache Karaf :: Shell :: Core (44) ... karaf@root()> bundle:requirements 44 | grep blueprint osgi.wiring.package; (&(osgi.wiring.package=org.apache.aries.blueprint)(version>=1.5.0)(!(version>=2.0.0))) resolved by: osgi.wiring.package; org.ap

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

Perhaps no one would be surprised that I think this is a good idea :-) david jencks > On Mar 17, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Christian Schneider > wrote: > > I see the issue for blueprint as it is quite heavy weight. > Scr on the other hand is just one bundle. > > Christian > > On 17.03.2016 16:58, Mo

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

Hi Milen, Karaf Shell Core (if you mean this bundle) doesn't depend on blueprint (blueprint is not defined as a and so not in the manifest, even for the command extender). Regards JB On 03/18/2016 07:14 PM, Milen Dyankov wrote: I personally think DS is pretty much what OSGi Alliance is goi

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

I see the issue for blueprint as it is quite heavy weight. Scr on the other hand is just one bundle. Christian On 17.03.2016 16:58, Morgan wrote: I only see one problem. JB wants to keep a normal/default distro where scr could have a place in the distro and also a minimal distro without scr so

Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

We currently use some custom Activator base classes to wire the karaf bundles. The goal of this was to avoid depending on blueprint as it is a quite heavy dependency and makes it harder to use a different blueprint impl or version. There are some problems with this approach though: - It makes i

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

If you use the apache-karaf distribution, the compatibility layer is installed. It includes a fragment attached to shell-core that drags in blueprint. Try using the apache-karat-minimal distribution instead. Fwiw, i'm almost exclusively use that one at dev time. So yes, blueprint is completely opt

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

I would prefer DS but if we could agree on dependency manager then that would still be better than our custom code. Btw. I would be interested to hear some more about your experiences and problems with DS. Till now I got most things running fine. Maybe we can chat on irc or google hangouts and th

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

I personally think DS is pretty much what OSGi Alliance is going to promote (together with the enRoute project) and from that perspective if any component framework's user base is going to grow that would be DS. But if you guys want to still do it the "hard way" that's fine too. It just means less

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

I only see one problem. JB wants to keep a normal/default distro where scr could have a place in the distro and also a minimal distro without scr so I don't know how you would deal with that? On 2016-03-17 16:43, Christian Schneider wrote: We currently use some custom Activator base classes to

Re: Discuss: Use DS for karaf bundles

-0 I'm puzzled here: - on one hand, I see that it can help for development, improve support of scr for some parts of Karaf (shell commands, etc), so it could be a good move - on the other hand, it's a core dependency, as we had for blueprint, so with the same problem: even the minimal distribu