Cool ! Don't hesitate to ping me (even on Hangout or whatever).
I'm always happy to help ! Regards JB On 09/07/2018 19:30, Nicolas Brasey wrote: > Thanks for that. > > I'll experiment a little bit this week and come back to you in case I > need more guidance. > > Thanks again. > > Nicolas > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 3:56 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net > <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> wrote: > > Hi Nicolas, > > I would recommend: > > 1. To take a look if you can't populate the system folder or even use > Cave on Karaf instance, acting as Maven repository that you can > populated > > Anyway, Kar is also an option but it needs a clean packaging and > dependency on kar file: > > 1. Your can package all as a kar but you are loosing "flexibility" > 2. In your case, I would recommend to use kar (with deploy > folder/deployer or kar:* commands for deployment). A first kar could be > a common kar providing packages/services that other kar will use. Other > kar are atomic and isolated from the others. > So you first deploy the first common kar and then the other kars (the > order should not matter). > > Kar works fine but a kar is supposed to be atomic: that's why I asked if > you have dependencies between kars. > > Regards > JB > > On 06/07/2018 13:55, Nicolas Brasey wrote: > > Hi Jean-Baptiste, > > > > Yes, our different kars have dependencies, so they must installed in a > > certain order. > > > > The features.xml only is not possible in our case because our target > > machines are running on private networks without internet access, > so the > > kars must contain all the runtime transitive dependencies. > > > > But to explain exactly what I'm trying to achieve today, I need to > > explain the history of our solution. It started 3 years ago as a > single > > application, at that time, the dev team A was delivering the app as a > > turnkey solution with a custom karaf distribution. The > installation was > > very easy for the delivery team => Move the distribution to the > server, > > unzip and start, the application jars were located in the system > > repository and the app features marked as boot features. > > > > Over the last months, we extended the core application by providing > > plugin mechanisms by using SPI's, implementing the white-board pattern > > (we like this a lot by the way :)). So now dev team B is implementing > > different plugins for specific needs. Those plugins have a different > > life cycle that the core app, and they are released as kars. > > > > Lately we found a bug in the main app which needed to be fixed and > > patched in a prod environment. We provided the patch with a new custom > > karaf distribution which the delivery installed. Of course, this new > > karaf distribution used another data directory and did not > reinstall the > > features of the kars of the different plugins. So manually > reinstalling > > the plugin features is absolutely needed in this scenario or the > > behavior of the application can differ from before the patching, which > > is obviously dangerous. > > > > Like I said, our main application is still released as part of our > > custom karaf distribution, this should be changed and we will probably > > release it a kar as well. > > > > So I try to achieve 3 things: > > > > 1) Find the optimal packaging for our app and plugins so that it > can be > > install / upgraded easily > > 2) Hide Karaf (OSGi) complexity from the delivery team, and they don't > > want to know about it :-) > > 3) Find the optimal way to set the bundle versions in our feature > files > > using ranges > > > > What would be a good practice in a scenario like ours? > > > > Thanks again. > > Regards > > Nicolas > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:31 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > <j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net> > > <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>>> wrote: > > > > Hi Nicolas > > > > The purpose of boot features is to start in early stage, so it > uses the > > cfg file as definition. > > > > In your case, you should use inner and prerequisite feature. > > > > Do you have some dependencies between kar ? > > > > Why don't you use directly feature instead of packaging as a kar ? > > > > Can you explain exactly what you are trying to do ? > > > > Karaf always store the feature state (in the resolver), so, if > you first > > install kar1, then kar2, when you restart, the resolver will > > reinstall/start those features. > > > > So, you don't have to use a boot feature: if you don't remove > the data > > folder, the installed features and repositories are stored. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On 05/07/2018 13:52, Nicolas Brasey wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org> > <mailto:jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org>> > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org> > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com > -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
