Mailing-List: contact dev-help@karaf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@karaf.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of cschneider111@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.48 as permitted sender)
Sender: Christian Schneider <cschneider111@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52D8F36F.5020500@die-schneider.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:10:07 +0100
From: Christian Schneider <chris@die-schneider.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@karaf.apache.org
Subject: Re: Minimal karaf distro
References: <52D7AB5A.70705@die-schneider.net>	<52D7AD23.5020009@nanthrax.net>
	<52D7AFB3.2080202@die-schneider.net>	<52D7B3ED.4040402@nanthrax.net>
	<52D7B895.6000903@die-schneider.net>
	<CADHGh9UOExoObrkwBtkASe2xiA3q3jZQb2AyQf686zjtz7qt3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<52D7FF43.2040202@die-schneider.net>
	<CADHGh9UDpzU_T=roSxueB52N-kFRHH+WNnON_==r7+Ce-Zoy-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD0r13fF1O-iK1XzcTz3n0ApxejecLTMzhRWbeX1-98+W8zZ2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<52D8EAB7.4060407@die-schneider.net>
 <CAD0r13fqOFpZy=MPTr0zguN_z0jh79uWxD+gkycddU3p-W64hw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAD0r13fqOFpZy=MPTr0zguN_z0jh79uWxD+gkycddU3p-W64hw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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
>>
>>
>


-- 
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de

Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com