karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Bosschaert <david.bosscha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Cave and Karaf 4
Date Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:31:34 GMT
Sounds interesting! Does Cave implement the actual OSGi Repository spec?



On 29 April 2015 at 16:18, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@apache.org> wrote:
> I've raised a JIRA issue for the integration of Cave and Karaf 4 (see
> KARAF-3712).
> I have the following things in mind to integrate Cave into Karaf 4.
> When I mean integrating, I mean two things :
>    - ability to to use osgi repository from cave inside the karaf feature
>    resolution process (karaf 4 already support external osgi repositories so
>    we're simply missing a compliant repository server)
>    - ability to use cave as a maven repository and not only an osgi
>    repository (i.e. serve other kind of artifacts with a real maven layout)
> It would require the following things :
>    - upgrade to CXF 3.1
>    - us the spec'ed xml instead of the custom bundle repository xml format
>    (both internally and for external access)
>    - provide support for accessing repositories as json based repository as
>    read by karaf 4 (see JsonRepository class)
>    - support for gzip encoding of the repository in the servlet
>    (repositories do compress very well)
>    - move the maven proxy support from karaf 4 to cave
> I think a good addition would be to provide each repository managed by cave
> as a Repository object instead of relying on the bundle repository
> Repository object which is an aggregation.
> I would also get rid of OBR since this is deprecated.
> We may also want to get rid of the felix bundle repository completely and
> rely on the felix repository and karat-features-core bundle internal
> classes.
> Another good improvement for 4.0 would be to make sure the repositories can
> be used with cellar using DOSGi.  Using a simple servlet instead of a full
> war for the cave http servlet would trim down the dependencies a bit too
> with no real loss imho.
> I'm wiling to experiment a bit with these ideas ...
> Thoughts ?

View raw message