I suggest we wait for CXF 3.0.2, as CXF 3.0.1 has some OSGi related bug[1] & [2] which IMO is important to get fixed in
[1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-5946 [2]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-5958 －－－－－－－－－－－－－ Freeman(Yue) Fang Red Hat, Inc. FuseSource is now part of Red Hat On 2014-9-23, at 下午5:14, Sobkowiak, Krzysztof wrote: > The jars from cxf tools are no more OSGi bundles. It will be corrected > with CXF 3.0.2 > (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cxf-dev/201408.mbox/%3CetPan.53fe971a.66334873.10b@localhost%3E). > > > > We will have the again problem with 2 cxf versions (3.0.1 and 3.0.2), > but 3.0.2 will win while installing. If we can live with this (until > next Camel release using 3.0.2) we can wait for 3.0.2. > > Best regards > Krzysztof > > > On 23.09.2014 10:26, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >> +1 >> >> but maybe wait for CXF 3.0.2 as I remember to have seen an issue with >> CXF 3.0.1 (one artifact is not an OSGi bundle, not sure if it's in CXF >> 3.0.0 or 3.0.1). >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On 09/23/2014 10:21 AM, Sobkowiak, Krzysztof wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> We have decided to upgrade 5.2.0 (Karaf 2.3.x), 5.3.0 (Karaf 2.4.x) and >>> 6.0.0 (Karaf 3.0.x) to Camel 2.14.0. This Camel version has following >>> dependencies >>> >>> * ActiveMQ: 5.10.0 -- no changes necessary >>> * CXF: 3.0.1 -- we use currently 2.7.11 >>> >>> Is it ok if we use new CXF major version in ServiceMix minor version >>> upgrade (5.2.x and 5.3.x; 6.0.x is ok). We could also use 2.7.12 in the >>> 5.2.x and 5.3.x (as Camel uses version range [2.7,4.0) for cxf in >>> feature dependencies), but it uses the fixed version 3.0.1 for cxf >>> features repository. In this case we will have 2 cxf versions available >>> in ServiceMix from which the version 3.0.1 will win while installing >>> camel features requiring cxf features. >>> >>> I propose the upgrade to CXF 3.0.1 in all branches upgraded to Camel >>> 2.14.0. >>> >>> Wdyt? >>> >>> Regards >>> Krzysztof >>> >>> >>> On 02.09.2014 15:06, Gert Vanthienen wrote: >>>> Hi Krzysztof, >>>> >>>> >>>> That looks good to me. For the Karaf 2.4.0 upgrade, I agree it would >>>> be nice if users could choose whether or not they want to do that >>>> along with the upgrade to Camel 2.14.0 - some users might prefer to >>>> bite the bullet once but others might prefer a more gradual approach. >>>> How about we keep the plan for 5.0.4, 5.1.2 and 6.0.0 as you suggested >>>> and instead of doing just one 5.2.0 release, do two releases with >>>> Camel 2.14.x: >>>> >>>> We could do a >>>> - 5.2.0 with Camel 2.14.0 and Karaf 2.3.7 >>>> - 5.3.0 with Camel 2.14.0 and Karaf 2.4.0. >>>> >>>> That way, people can choose which version of Karaf to use with Camel >>>> 2.14.x. That would give people some extra time to migrate to the newer >>>> version of Karaf if they need it - for the next minor version of Camel >>>> (2.15.0), we should drop support for Karaf 2.3.x and only use Karaf >>>> 2.4.x though to avoid we end up with an entire matrix of version >>>> combinations to support/release. >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Gert Vanthienen >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> Camel community plans 2.14.0 release soon. I'd like to propose >>>>> following: >>>>> >>>>> 1. 5.0.4 with Camel 2.12.x - still waiting for Karaf 2.3.7 >>>>> 2. 5.1.2 with Camel 2.13.x- still waiting for Karaf 2.3.7 >>>>> 3. 5.2.0 with Camel 2.14.x- Karaf 2.4.0 >>>>> 4. 6.0.0 with Camel 2.14.x - Karaf 3.0.2 >>>>> >>>>> It would be also nice to release ServiceMix with Karaf 2.3.x and Camel >>>>> 2.14.x. It would be nice to release it as 5.2.0. But 5.2.0 should be >>>>> with Karaf 2.4.0. What if we would like to make a release with Camel >>>>> 2.15.x and Karaf 2.3.x? Should we do a release based on Karaf 2.3.x >>>>> and >>>>> Camel higher than 2.13.x? If yes, we should change versioning of >>>>> ServiceMix >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Krzysztof >>>>> >>> >> > > -- > Krzysztof Sobkowiak > > JEE & OSS Architect | Technical Architect @ Capgemini | Committer @ ASF > 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 > Calendar: http://goo.gl/yvsebC
