Thank you for the feedback, I hope there will be some more opportunity to discuss this on Karaf mailing list.
Regards, Cristiano 2014-02-18 9:18 GMT+01:00 Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]>: > Hi Cristiano, > > Equinox is a big PITA right now, as they just don't respect maven and > therefore it always needs other to publish a Equinox version. > This as a background information. > Regarding upgrading to a higher version of Equinox for Karaf 2.3.5 I'm not > sure as Equinox does support different OSGi standards > with minor version upgrades. So this is something that needs to be > discussed on the Karaf mailinglist, for broader audience ;). > Besides this I fully understand your concerns and I personally prefer to > use a maven central also, though certain versions of Equinox aren't > available and need to be supplied by different means. > > regards, Achim > > > > > 2014-02-18 8:50 GMT+01:00 Cristiano Costantini < > [email protected]>: > > > Achim, I talk to you as you are involved a lot on Karaf development and > > mailing list: > > > > Karaf 2.3.3 introduces a Maven transitive dependency on Equinox 3.8.0 > that > > is not available on maven central repo, > > this is a problem for people like me who have a policy that filter Maven > > repositories from which to retrieve artifacts, > > > > I strongly believe this to be a best practice of using maven and I don't > > want to change, and it helps keeping the project clean. > > How can we push Karaf community to upgrade to Equinox to > > 3.9.1-v20130814-1242 for next Karaf (2.3.5 ?) and use that one for > > ServiceMix 5? > > > > Thank you for listening to my concerns, > > Cristiano > > > > > > > > 2014-02-18 8:36 GMT+01:00 Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]>: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > since I've not been aware of this rather "major" change of dropping > > JBI/NMR > > > from ServiceMix I'm fine to do a ServiceMix 5 with Karaf 2.2.3 as the > big > > > thing that changes is internal to ServiceMix, so yes it sounds more > then > > > reasonable to do a ServiceMix 6 with Karaf 3 :) > > > > > > regards, Achim > > > > > > > > > 2014-02-18 3:13 GMT+01:00 Freeman Fang <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > +1 for SMX 5 with Karaf 2.3.x and SMX 6 with Karaf 3.x > > > > > > > > We better give more time for community to adopt Karaf 3.x, collect > more > > > > feedback of Karaf 3.x in Karaf community, etc. And then SMX move to > > Karaf > > > > 3.x > > > > －－－－－－－－－－－－－ > > > > Freeman(Yue) Fang > > > > > > > > Red Hat, Inc. > > > > FuseSource is now part of Red Hat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2014-2-18, at 上午9:49, Gert Vanthienen wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Raul had one more suggestion to add to that list: doing a 4.6.0 > with > > > > > Karaf 2.3.x and using Karaf 3.x for ServiceMix 5. Instead of > > > > > resorting to a vote for something like this, I think it would be > > > > > better to try and build a consensus first. > > > > > > > > > > I think we should go for "SMX 5 with Karaf 2.3.x and SMX 6 with > Karaf > > > > > 3.x", for two reasons: > > > > > - From a "marketing" perspective, using Karaf 2.x for ServiceMix 5 > > and > > > > > Karaf 3.x for ServiceMix 6 would give us the opportunity to signal > > two > > > > > important changes to the community: officially dropping JBI/NMR > > > > > support would be the highlight of ServiceMix and Karaf 3 would be > the > > > > > highlight for ServiceMix 6. We can probably even get the first > > > > > ServiceMix 5 release out next week or so, if we focus on the task > at > > > > > hand and if all goes well. > > > > > - From a technical perspective, this does give us quite a bit of > > > > > flexibility to cater to the needs of the community by allowing us > to > > > > > nicely do Karaf 2.3.x/2.4.x and 3.x based releases side-by-side > for a > > > > > while, until we managed to convince everyone to switch to Karaf 3 > ;). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Gert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Hi > > > > >> > > > > >> I think somebody should start the vote. We have 2 options: > > > > >> > > > > >> * SMX 5 with Karaf 2.3.x and SMX 6 with Karaf 3.x > > > > >> * SMX 4.9 with Karaf 2.3.x and SMX 5 with Karaf 3.x > > > > >> > > > > >> Regards > > > > >> Krzysztof > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On 17.02.2014 16:59, Cristiano Costantini wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I've already repeated my position up to be annoying :-) but I > > repeat > > > > that > > > > >>> for me either solutions are ok > > > > >>> Maybe a quick vote could be the fastest and more democratic way > to > > > > take a > > > > >>> decision ?s > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Could someone please summarize the available options? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Regards, > > > > >>> Cristiano > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> 2014-02-17 16:53 GMT+01:00 Gert Vanthienen < > > > [email protected] > > > > >: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Hi Raul, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Yeah, I think 4.9.0 is a bit of a strange version number as > well. > > > But > > > > >>>> you're also right that some users will take a bit longer to move > > > over > > > > >>>> to Karaf 3. What's more: the version may not even be as > > temporary > > > > >>>> for us as we would hope, perhaps we end up doing another release > > in > > > > >>>> that series if people in the community are asking about another > > > Karaf > > > > >>>> 2.x based release after this one. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> We do want that to be based on the current ServiceMix 5 codebase > > > > >>>> (without JBI/NMR) and not on the current ServiceMix 4.x > codebase? > > > > >>>> Because the latter was the original plan and we failed to get > any > > > > >>>> contributors to help out with that effort. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I do wonder if we won't end up confusing people as well, when > > > > >>>> ServiceMix 4.6.0 suddenly no longer has any JBI/NMR support in > > > there. > > > > >>>> We can probably communicate that though, so it might not be that > > > big a > > > > >>>> problem, but we might also want to reconsider Krzysztof's > proposal > > > to > > > > >>>> go with 5.x for the Karaf 2.x-based assemblies without JBI/NMR > > (and > > > we > > > > >>>> can have a few of those, using Karaf 2.3.x and 2.4.x) and use > 6.x > > > for > > > > >>>> the Karaf 3-based assemblies. > > > > >>>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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/> > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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/> >
