Hi Andreas, that's fine with me.
regards, Achim > Mhm.. Since this thread is trailing off a little bit; just come back > to the point: anyone any problem if I delay KARAF-482 and KARAF-504 to > 3.x only? > > Kind regards, > Andreas > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jamie G. <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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. <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>> >>>
