karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: Enterprise Feature Repository Causing Invalid Custom Distribution...
Date Tue, 08 Jan 2019 12:50:02 GMT
I see the changes in the ActiveMQ to make it more “open” (didn’t know that
was what it’s called). I like that much better. Too bad we can’t declare a
requirement on another repository and not a full import. Perhaps we can
enhance the feature repository format to allow for that?
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 7:37 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net> wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> I guess you mean "open" features (where features repo are used at
> runtime) compared to "close" features (where features repo uses inner
> <repository/>).
>
> The approach also depends of your deployment option. For instance:
>
> 1. when I'm using Karaf as a runtime, where I install several
> applications, most of the time I'm using "open" features (via Cave
> Feature Gateway or directly).
> 2. when I'm using Karaf more as an immutable "box" (like on Docker),
> "close" features or custom distribution is convenient.
>
> Generally speaking, I prefer "open" features repo, and eventually create
> my own custom distro (as the "kloud" one).
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 08/01/2019 12:42, James Carman wrote:
> > I’m really not a big fan of features files pulling in karaf feature
> > repository files. We avoid that at work and just have our features files
> > refer to other features by name only (no versions and no repositories).
> > That’s a more controlled environment, of course. What’s the “best
> practice”
> > for the more general care? It just seems dangerous for other folks to
> start
> > yanking in possibly incompatible feature repositories.
> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 1:59 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> AFAIR, I already fixed ActiveMQ features XML.
> >>
> >> Let me try with ActiveMQ SNAPSHOT.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> >>
> >> On 08/01/2019 07:35, Benjamin Graf wrote:
> >>> Hi JB,
> >>>
> >>> that's the error of the ActiveMQ feature file I reported last year. The
> >>> corrected feature file is not releases yet. It may also be a problem in
> >>> the resolvement algorithm used by involved components mainly outside
> >>> Karaf I think pax-url if I remember right.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Benjamin
> >>>
> >>> Am 8. Januar 2019 06:09:10 MEZ schrieb "Jean-Baptiste Onofré"
> >>> <jb@nanthrax.net>:
> >>>
> >>>     By the way, the enterprise features repo is used in the standard
> >> Karaf
> >>>     distribution, so it's weird that it works here. It's maybe a
> >> combination
> >>>     of features.
> >>>
> >>>     For the tracking I created:
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-6075
> >>>
> >>>     Regards
> >>>     JB
> >>>
> >>>     On 07/01/2019 22:16, James Carman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>         We are trying to build our own custom Karaf 4.2.2 distribution
> >> and
> >>>         when we include the enterprise feature repository along with
> the
> >>>         ActiveMQ 5.15.8 feature repository, we get an invalid
> >>>         org.apache.karaf.features.cfg file which includes
> 4.2.3-SNAPSHOT
> >>>         versions of some of the boot features. I have created an
> example
> >>>         project here:
> >>>
> >>>         https://github.com/jwcarman/custom-karaf-example
> >>>
> >>>         If you build it as-is, you'll see the problem. If you comment
> >>>         out the
> >>>         enterprise feature repo, the problem goes away.
> >>>
> >>>         Thanks,
> >>>
> >>>         James
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> >> jbonofre@apache.org
> >> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> >> Talend - http://www.talend.com
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>

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