Ok, sorry for the noise ;)

May be you can write your own Deployer as a workaround, there is an
example here :
https://github.com/jbonofre/karaf/tree/DEV_GUIDE/examples/karaf-deployer-example

François

Le 06/07/2018 à 17:33, Nicolas Brasey a écrit :
> Hi Francois,
>
> This is not possible, the servers are running in security zones
> without internet access, no proxying or tunneling is possible. But
> this is not really the problem as we use the kars which contain all we
> need.
>
> Nicolas
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 3:26 PM Francois Papon
> <francois.pa...@openobject.fr <mailto:francois.pa...@openobject.fr>>
> wrote:
>
>     Hi Nicolas,
>
>     When target machines are on a private network, it's usefull to
>     have an instance of Nexus used like a proxy for the externals
>     dependencies and the dev team can also publish their bundles on
>     this Nexus.
>
>     regards,
>
>     François Papon
>     fpa...@apache.org <mailto:fpa...@apache.org>
>     Yupiik - https://www.yupiik.com
>
>     Le 06/07/2018 à 16:55, Nicolas Brasey a écrit :
>>     Yes we tried but had problems with the KarService implementation
>>     of karaf v.4.1.2 which had some issues with starting our
>>     features, there was some kind of loop which ended-up
>>     installing/uninstalling many time the same features, it was not
>>     working for us, so we have now our own implementation of a
>>     KarService which only unpacks the kar into a repository directory
>>     outside of the karaf distribution. The installation of the
>>     feature is made manually in a second stage. So at the moment we
>>     use the Kar as only a zip container as maven repository.
>>
>>     I saw the implementation of the KarService changed in the latest
>>     version of Karaf, so I've not tried again since.
>>
>>     Is it possible to tell the karaf feature resolver to persist the
>>     state of the features outside of the karaf distribution ? This
>>     would be helpful for us.
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     Nicolas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      
>>
>>     On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 2:34 PM Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org
>>     <mailto:gno...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>>         Have you tried simply dropping the kars in the deploy folder ?
>>         This should install / start them automatically without the
>>         need to create a custom distribution.
>>
>>         Guillaume
>>
>>         Le jeu. 5 juil. 2018 à 13:53, Nicolas Brasey
>>         <nicolas.bra...@gmail.com <mailto:nicolas.bra...@gmail.com>>
>>         a écrit :
>>
>>             Hi all,
>>
>>             I'm trying to find out if there is way to install a
>>             feature and make it as a boot feature without manually
>>             altering the feature cfg file
>>             (org.apache.karaf.features.cfg). Checking in karaf's code
>>             seems to indicate there is no way to do this
>>             programmatically.
>>
>>             Ideally, it would be a flag in the feature:install
>>             command to indicate to add this feature as a boot feature.
>>
>>             The reason we need this is that our solution is an
>>             integrated solution which is delivered by different
>>             departments:
>>
>>             1) Product 1 (kar 1) => dev team A
>>             2) Product 2 (kar 2) => dev team B
>>             3) Integration layer (camel routes essentially) (kar 3)
>>             => integration team
>>
>>             All these different teams delivering a self
>>             contained kar file with a feature which should be
>>             installed and started when karaf starts in order to have
>>             the global solution running.
>>
>>             We are using karaf v.4.1.2 which does not seems to
>>             persist which features have been installed (only the boot
>>             features). I'm not sure about the v.4.2.x...
>>
>>             I know Karaf since not so long, but I believe Karaf has
>>             been designed so that the delivery team is supposed to
>>             create a Karaf distribution and assembling the required
>>             boot features at build time. If this is true, then it is
>>             not ideal according to how our internal process is made.
>>
>>             Any thoughts?
>>             Thanks!
>>
>>             Best regards,
>>             Nicolas 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>              
>>
>>
>>
>>         -- 
>>         ------------------------
>>         Guillaume Nodet
>>
>

Reply via email to