+1, especially for using Karaf 3.0.1 with Servicemix 5, Karaf 3.0.1 because we already identified some rather nasty bugs with Karaf that shouldn't spoil a ServiceMix 5 ;)
regards, Achim 2014-02-14 10:55 GMT+01:00 Cristiano Costantini < [email protected]>: > My opinion: > Servicemix 5.0.0 -> Karaf 3.0.0 > then branch and Servicemix 4.9.0 -> latest Karaf 2.3.x > > this because jumping from 2.2.11 to 3.0.0 may be a big step and it's good > to have something in between > and I would assign this the version number 4.9 to mark it is still big step > that discontinues from the previous versions, and something that leads to > the next big revision > > (I remember that firefox did something like this from version 3.1 to 3.5 so > to mark the big changes even if not upgrading to major version, this before > startying to release a new version every 6 weeks :-) ) > > > > > > > 2014-02-14 10:14 GMT+01:00 Krzysztof Sobkowiak <[email protected] > >: > > > Hi > > > > Due to the training for my company I couldn't follow the whole discussion > > about future of ServiceMix5. Are we going to upgrade it to Karaf 3.x or > > will it be released on basis of Karaf 2.x? > > > > Regards > > Krzysztof > > > > > > On 13.02.2014 09:53, Gert Vanthienen wrote: > > > >> L.S., > >> > >> > >> Moving the discussion from the users@ to dev@ mailing list, it would > >> be good to figure out how to go about things. > >> > >> For now, I would propose we avoid adding any extra complexity and just > >> focus on getting a simple assembly project in place that combines the > >> latest and greatest bits of ActiveMQ, CXF, Camel, Karaf, ... > >> > >> How about we start with the ServiceMix 5 codebase, remove the new > >> Camel interceptor bits for now and just focus on getting the assembly > >> itself, the examples and the integration tests working? That way, we > >> should have a fairly manageable amount of work to perform before we > >> can get to a new release. > >> > >> We have a board report coming up in March, so we can convey this new > >> direction in that. Perhaps we should use the next board report after > >> that as a checkpoint to see if we are making any progress: by then, I > >> think we should have been able to do at least one or two releases and > >> we should have found a few people that are willing/able to help out > >> with the work. If we have not made any progress on the community > >> aspect by then, it may be a good time to reflect on how to gracefully > >> move people over to a plain Karaf/CXF/Camel/... solution instead. > >> > >> > >> Wdyt? > >> > >> Gert Vanthienen > >> > > > > > > -- > > Krzysztof Sobkowiak > > > > JEE & OSS Architect | Technical Architect @ Capgemini > > Capgemini <http://www.pl.capgemini.com/> | Software Solutions Center < > > http://www.pl.capgemini-sdm.com/> | Wroclaw > > e-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> | > > Twitter: @KSobkowiak > > > -- Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead OPS4J Pax for Vaadin <http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home> Commiter & Project Lead blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
