Yeah, I'm with Guillaume and Ioannis here. －－－－－－－－－－－－－ Freeman(Yue) Fang
Red Hat, Inc. FuseSource is now part of Red Hat Web: http://fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com/ Twitter: freemanfang Blog: http://freemanfang.blogspot.com http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1473905042 weibo: http://weibo.com/u/1473905042 On 2012-10-18, at 下午4:14, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > 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
