Yeah, that's also my fear. If we need to have a separate definition for each karaf version, I'm not really sure there's a huge win in externalizing those from the karaf branches. Maybe that's not too much the case between 2.2 and 2.3, but I kinda fear 2.3 / 3.0 need a lot of changes, even in some projects themselves.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Ioannis Canellos <[email protected]> wrote: > The idea seems good at first glance, but there are things that we need > consider. > > In many cases a feature descriptor is not portable between major Karaf > versions, and it also happens that it breaks between minor versions. > > Even from Karaf 2.2.x to Karaf 2.3.x I've seen third party features break. > So it may seem that most features could decoupled from the underlying > version of Karaf, but practically this is not always the case. > > An example: In the spring feature case, we also have the spring deployer. > Where will the source of spring deployer will be hosted and which are going > to be the versions of fileinstall and karaf that the deployer will be built > against? > > > -- > *Ioannis Canellos* > * > > ** > Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com > ** > Twitter: iocanel > * > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ FuseSource, Integration everywhere http://fusesource.com
