karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Baptiste Onofré ...@nanthrax.net>
Subject Re: Minimal karaf distro
Date Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:17:53 GMT
It's funny: blueprint has been designed to simplify the implementation, 
and now, it seems that "we want" move backward.
Of course, we can use Activator, ServiceTracker, directly ConfigAdmin: 
on one side you remove a dependency (to blueprint), on another side you 
write more plumbing.

Now, I have a question: how many users/people use CXF DOSGi outside of 
Karaf (so directly in Felix or Equinox without Blueprint) ?

I just think loud. I think core/minimal/net distributions make sense 
(and I already created Jira and started to work on it).
I just wonder about "breaking" feature implementation to remove the 
blueprint dependency. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against, I just wonder 
the benefit for end users.

I'm still thinking about this.

Regards
JB

On 01/17/2014 10:10 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> I am fine with switching to DS in general. Still I think it should make
> sense to have the innermost core of karaf even independent from DS.
> It does not cost us a lot as we only will have one module without DS and
> gives people a little more freedom about what they can do.
>
> For example in CXF DOSGi we went the same road. It used blueprint before
> and we switched to plain OSGi API so people have maximum freedom how to
> use DSOGi. There it costs even a little more as we have more setup than
> feature core does.
>
> Christian
>
> On 17.01.2014 09:54, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>> Ahh, that gives a better picture.
>> Cause the headline of this thread just suggest building another distro
>> "Minimal Karaf distro", and till now you've always argued about a
>> minimal/core distro.
>>
>> With a really minimal karaf base distro a user could pick and choose
>>> exactly what he wants. For example if you create a distro for an
>>> embedded
>>> device or mobile device.
>>
>> Unless no one noticed,
>> set advocatus diaboli on:
>>
>> If it's used for internals fine, but do we really need it?
>> What is the benefit of it. I don't see much more value to it
>> then what Ioannis already did propose for the minimal distribution.
>> It'll skip blueprint as you propose and as far as I can estimate "Neil"
>> would love seeing DS as basis ;)
>> (but this is just an assumption, based on observing different mail and
>> stackoverflow threads)
>>
>> set advocatus diaboli off!
>>
>> right now I'd stick to the idea of Ioannis with a minimal distribution
>> based on DS.
>> This should be sufficient and will keep the hassles of Trackers away.
>>
>> regards, Achim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014/1/17 Christian Schneider <chris@die-schneider.net>
>>
>>> Hi Achim,
>>>
>>> I am aware that the core "distro" is rather not meant to be
>>> downloaded and
>>> used as is by users. I rather think it could replace the current
>>> "framework" feature that we and others use to build distros. With a
>>> slimmer
>>> framework kar we give people more freedom on how to assemble their
>>> distros.
>>> For example if we do not include aries blueprint in framework people can
>>> use their prefered version of blueprint. Currently upgrades of blueprint
>>> are always tie to a change off the karaf version.
>>>
>>> At the same time providing the current standard and minimal distros will
>>> not become more difficult as we would just move some bundles from
>>> startup.properties into features. Like Ioannis wrote it is just a way to
>>> make karaf more modular.
>>>
>>> We still can provide a core distro if people see value in it but it
>>> is not
>>> my main concern to have this.
>>>
>>> So if we can agree that a framework feature without blueprint would make
>>> sense I will try to make features core independent of blueprint. This
>>> should not affect any other modules and gives us the basis for a slimmer
>>> framework kar.
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16.01.2014 21:39, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ioannis,
>>>>
>>>> no trouble with this kind of "minimal" cause it gives a real value
>>>> on top
>>>> of
>>>> the OSGi framework. Otherwise I wouldn't know where the difference is
>>>> between
>>>> using a plain OSGi framework + pax-url and Karaf.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> regards, Achim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014/1/16 Ioannis Canellos <iocanel@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>   If the distribution only starts framework, config admin, scr &
>>>> pax-url
>>>>> & karaf features, then minimal = net.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ioannis Canellos
>>>>>
>>>>> Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com
>>>>> Twitter: iocanel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Christian Schneider
>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>>
>>> Open Source Architect
>>> http://www.talend.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

Mime
View raw message