Hehe, the Pax Web features are just a "copy" of the features in the std.
features.xml :)
so no original here ;)
I also like the idea of JB here, so +1 on that :)
regards, Achim
Am 31.08.2011 09:50, schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré:
> Yep, indeed, we should avoid to duplicate the features descriptor i
Yep, indeed, we should avoid to duplicate the features descriptor if
projects already provide one ;)
That's why Cave as a KFR is really valuable: we will be able to "host"
features descriptors provided by a bunch of project and avoid to include
it in the Karaf distribution.
Regards
JB
On 08
I like the idea! Maybe we can include the "original" pax-web features file
then?
Kind regards,
Andreas
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:56, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> good questions.
>
> I think it could have sense to have a karaf-spring features XML containing
> only the Spring feat
Hi David,
good questions.
I think it could have sense to have a karaf-spring features XML
containing only the Spring features, especially with Cave acting as a
Karaf Features Repository (KFR).
It means that the standard feature will contain:
- obr
- http
- war
- wrapper
- config
- jetty
- ht
+1 here; in addition spring has a wide enough range of features that it
makes sense to keep it in an own repo.
Kind regards,
Andreas
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:51, David Jencks wrote:
> I keep wondering how "standard" the spring features are and wonder if they
> would be better in a separate "s
I keep wondering how "standard" the spring features are and wonder if they
would be better in a separate "spring" feature repository. Thoughts?
(I'm thinking trunk only)
thanks
david jencks
