karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Achim Nierbeck <bcanh...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Minimal karaf distro
Date Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:54:10 GMT
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
>
>


-- 

Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer &
Project Lead
OPS4J Pax for Vaadin <http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home>
Commiter & Project Lead
blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message