karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Tran <dant...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Discuss] Handling of initial bundles
Date Sun, 03 Jun 2012 15:28:00 GMT
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Christian Schneider
<chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> One nice  thing about the feature files we currently use is that they are
> globally adressable using a maven coordinate. So by support reading features
> we could create a very small distro that can read all it needs from maven
> repos. If maven access is not allowed/possible in an environment we can
> nicely use our system dir to make karaf fully self contained.
> So feature reading would allow us to have a fixed small binary distro that
> can easily be customized by users. They can already change the feature set
> they want and with startup feature loading they could also customize the
> startup feature without build their own distro. We could extend that to some
> commands that allow reading features into the system dir. So the user could
> download a small karaf binary, execute some commands at a place with maven
> repo access and as a result get a customized distro he can then use in a
> closed company environment. This would be much simpler then building your
> own distro with maven like you have to do it now.

>From the perspective of karaf's feature, this is a big plus for us
since we deliver karaf to our client
in a isolated environment.

> Honestly the above thing would also work nicely without loading startup
> bundles from a feature file. I doubt anyway that people really need to
> change the framework bundles.
> Supporting the subsystem spec sounds great to me. So that may be a good
> reason to delay supporting feature reading and then only support it for the
> subsystem spec features. Any way the startup feature loading from xml is not
> that big of an issue for me. I thought it is a nice feature but it is not
> really crucial.
> Now to the last part about maven support in karaf. I think at the moment
> maven support is a key feature in karaf that makes it much easier to use
> than other frameworks. It allows to install big frameworks like camel and
> cxf with just some simple commands. Whenever I show this to people who do
> not know karaf they are really impressed by it. So while I am sure that
> maven is not ideal for OSGi bundles it is the best we currently have.
> I fully support replacing maven with something better like obr but only when
> it is ready. So the key to that would be that all relevant bundles are
> available in OBRs. We then also would need a url for adressing bundles from
> OBRs (not sure if we have such a thing already). So replacing maven sounds
> like a good goal for the future but not near term. Perhaps in the end maven
> and OBR grow together anyway and the big maven repos simply additionally
> support OBR. So you would address the entry points into the OBR as maven
> coordinates and resolve dependencies using the OBR features.
> Christian
> P.S. Thanks for your nice words about my contributions to karaf. I really
> like Karaf and see a great future for it. So I guess I just have to learn to
> step on less toes on the way :-)
> Am 02.06.2012 19:26, schrieb David Jencks:
>> Hi Christian,
>> I'm not a big fan of xml when dealing with not-very-complicated data.  The
>> data in startup.properties is just about the right complexity for a
>> properties file.  A feature repo is too much: it can contain more than one
>> feature, and the name of the startup feature has to be hard coded.
>> Furthermore, now that the subsystem spec is fairly final I think we should
>> look towards using spec features as much as possible and start thinking of
>> karaf features as possibly obsolete.  Pushing the karaf feature xml format
>> into the framework startup is exactly opposite of this goal.
>> I looked back and reviewed your patch.  Mostly I'm impressed with how much
>> you've contributed in the last few months :-)  I wish I had as much time to
>> spend on karaf....  Your patch is indeed pretty simple and small but my
>> objections are really to the idea of using xml during startup rather than
>> the implementation.  I might have missed it but didn't think you addressed
>> the question of why xml was better than a properties file.
>> My views might not be shared by many others, for instance I really think
>> we should try hard to make karaf runtime independent of maven including the
>> mvn url handler, and I'm not sure anyone else agrees with me.
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> On Jun 2, 2012, at 2:17 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> --
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
> Open Source Architect
> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com

View raw message