I think this is something which could be interesting for a 2.3 release; still I think we have enough "minor" features available which may be interesting to be backported to a 2.3 release without introducing something "bigger". BTW, if Ioannis would like to donate his work we really should start a wiki page (maybe still in the 3.x roadmap) discussing where and how we want to include it. Maybe we should also have to state the differences to Apache ACE?
Kind regards, Andreas On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jamie G. <jamie.goody...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm liking Ioannis Canellos' Hazelcast clustering project for Karaf 3.x: > http://iocanel.blogspot.com/2011/03/karaf-clustering-using-hazelcast.html > > He currently has a working implementation for 2.2.x, perhaps that > might be something to introduce to 2.3.x if that branch comes into > being? (that's of course assuming that Ioannis would like to donate it > to Karaf) > > Cheers, > Jamie > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Achim Nierbeck <bcanh...@googlemail.com> > wrote: >> I'm unsure about the 3.0 version also. >> There are certain things on the road-map which are still not fully >> discussed >> for example the clustering thing. At least I didn't see anything on the >> mailing-list >> for this :) >> From my feeling we are not at close to a 3.0 version yet. >> Probably need a 2.3 then I guess, on the other hand we stated that we do >> switch >> to Java 6 and since Java 7 is on the road we really should get some >> momentum on this :) >> >> Regards, Achim >> >> Am 09.04.2011 15:05, schrieb Andreas Pieber: >>> Mhm... I've no problems by delaying 3.x longer, but in this case I >>> think we may should also develop on a 2.3.x release? There are already >>> (and there will be more over the next weeks) features on 3.x branch >>> (which could be backported easily) which are very valuable and which >>> we could/should make available faster. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Andreas >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jamie G. <jamie.goody...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I'm partial to the mantra of "release early, release often", but I'd >>>> say we should at least be talking 2 months out for Karaf 3.0.0. >>>> >>>> I've been holding off starting up the user survey just to give the >>>> development direction of the 3.x branch some time to come into focus. >>>> If it is felt that we should accelerate however then perhaps this >>>> survey project can be bumped up the priority list. >>>> >>>> I'm also keeping in mind that we have a 2.2.1 and 2.1.5 release >>>> already on the work queue, so some community dev cycles are going to >>>> be allocated to those over the next few weeks, instead of focussing on >>>> trunk. >>>> >>>> As to the Karaf 3.x for m3 and Karaf 2.x for m2 compatibility, I'm >>>> liking the idea. Karaf 2.x is already the JDK 1.5 compatible line, >>>> we'd just redefine it as the JDK 1.5 / m2 line. Karaf 3.x being JDK >>>> 1.6+, m3. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Jamie >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <anpie...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hey guys, >>>>> >>>>> We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504, >>>>> KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon >>>>> (1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially >>>>> compatible to m2? WDYT? >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> Andreas >>>>> >> >> >
