Hi All, I'm also in favor of 4.2.0 here, Pax Web doesn't need anything special of the 4.3.0 line (yet ;) ) afaik the webbundle part was also introduced with the compendium spec of 4.2.0 so basically Pax Web needs 4.2.0 :)
regards, Achim 2012/1/25 Andreas Pieber <anpie...@gmail.com> > I'm with Toni and you on this one. 4.2.0 as "general" version for all > pax-projects; single subprojects can take 4.3.0 but only if they really use > new features (although I'm not aware right now of any pax-project really > needing it). > > Also +1 to the version matrix. In addition I think an upgrade to 4.3.0 > should go at least with a new minor release (better with a new major) and > is something which might should be discussed first here on this list. > > Therefore I think we should also revert all upgrades to 4.3.0 before the > next releases already done to various pax projects. > > Kind regards, > Andreas > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 19:48, Toni Menzel <t...@okidokiteam.com> wrote: > >> I usually had (in the recent year) 4.2.0 in mind. - some kind of implicit >> assumption that its what many OSGi related projects use. I think its even >> today the lowest common denominator across pax projects, so we should align >> them to that version. >> >> Once a single project needs to go with 4.3.0 it can do so (for example >> for using the Hook AP e.g.). But, again, 4.2.0 looks like a good agreement. >> The next "useful" level of - speaking of getting a larger user base - would >> be supporting OSGi Spec 3.x.. which i don't see happening in the tooling >> space. >> >> Toni >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Harald Wellmann < >> hwellmann...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> Which OSGi versions should we support in Pax? >>> >>> Which OSGi version should we use to compile Pax projects? >>> >>> The reason I'm asking is: There have been a few commits introducing >>> org.osgi.core:4.3.0 here and there and a few comments not so happy about >>> that move. >>> >>> I tend to agree, but changing the POMs back and forth is not a good >>> idea, so I'd like to discuss the issue and hopefully reach an agreement >>> before the next release train. >>> >>> According to [1], only OSGI 4.x is supported. >>> >>> Pax Exam and Pax Swissbox Framework definitely require 4.2.0 or higher >>> because of the FrameworkFactory. >>> >>> The Pax Swissbox Parent POM has org.osgi.core:4.0.1 in the last release >>> and 4.2.0 in current snapshots (changed by myself in December) - if this is >>> not desirable, there's no problem reverting to 4.0.1 in the parent and >>> using 4.2.0 for pax-swissbox-framework only. >>> >>> Regarding OSGi 4.3.0, there are significant API changes, not only new >>> classes and methods but also changed signatures due to generic type >>> arguments. While this is backward compatible (i.e. OSGi 4.3.0 runs bundles >>> compiled with 4.2.0), I'm not so sure about the opposite direction, and >>> even if there are no runtime conflicts, you get lots of ugly compiler >>> warnings when compiling current Pax code with raw types against OSGi 4.3.0 >>> with generics. >>> >>> So I think we should stick with (or revert to) 4.2.0 until further >>> notice, which does not rule out the possibility of individual subprojects >>> upgrading to 4.3.0 if they unavoidably require some of the new features >>> (e.g. weaving hooks). >>> >>> And we should clearly define which projects (if any) shall remain >>> compatible to 4.0.1 or 4.1.0 and put up a nice handy project/version matrix >>> in the Wiki. >>> >>> By the way, anybody voting for 4.1.0 support should be prepared to >>> contribute integration tests running on old framework versions :-P >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> [1] >>> http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/**display/ops4j/Pax<http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/ops4j/Pax> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Harald >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> general mailing list >>> general@lists.ops4j.org >>> http://lists.ops4j.org/**mailman/listinfo/general<http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Toni Menzel Source <http://tonimenzel.com> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> general mailing list >> general@lists.ops4j.org >> http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > general@lists.ops4j.org > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > > -- Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
_______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
