+1 for staying with dm 1.2.0-m2

Lars



Guillaume Nodet schrieb:
> Releasing both camel and cxf based components sounds good.
>
> For Smx4, we have a choice we need to discuss and settle asap.   Some
> time ago, servicemix kernel and components have been upgraded to
> spring-dm 1.2.0-m2.  The changes on the spring configuration file used
> when deploying the components in servicemix 4 is incompatible with
> spring-dm 1.1.x.  So in order to release servicemix 4, we have to
> either:
>    * release all components with spring-dm 1.2.0-m2 configuration
>    * revert components and kernel to spring-dm 1.1.x
>    * wait for spring dm 1.2.0 ga before releasing kernel + components
>
> I'm not really in favor of #3.  If we don't want to release all
> components, we can revert back to spring-dm 1.1.x.  The new feature of
> spring-dm 1.2.0 is mainly the ability to have updates in the osgi
> configuration admin propagated dynamically to spring beans, but we
> haven't leveraged that yet, so reverting is not a big deal at this
> point.
> However, we need to choose quickly.
>
> 2009/2/12 Gert Vanthienen <[email protected]>:
>   
>> L.S.,
>>
>> A while back, we separated the components into a separate build so they 
>> could be shared between ServiceMix 3 and ServiceMix 4, but we also made 
>> every component a Maven project on its own to allow them to be released 
>> independently.  Up to now, we didn't really leverage all the hard work that 
>> was done to make this happen, but we might have a good opportunity to start 
>> the habit now:
>> - Camel 1.6.0 is being voted and we don't even have a Camel 1.5.0 component 
>> in Servicemix, so we could do with a release of servicemix-camel
>> - I guess the same also goes for CXF, we should be able to release a new CXF 
>> component whenever CXF itself is released
>>
>> On the other hand, I think we are also waiting for a Spring DM 1.2.0 release 
>> to get a full set of components released again, so it might be better to 
>> just wait a little while and do a full component release once more before we 
>> start our new best habit.
>>
>> Once again: thought? suggestions?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gert
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   

Reply via email to