+1 on releasing karaf 2.2 once aries gets out and then start working on 3. On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 06:54:12AM +0100, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > To avoid to lost the users, I prefer to release Karaf 2.2.0 in the > > current state. > > +1 to this > > > Karaf 3.0.0 should contain significant improvements and changes. > > > > Maybe, it could be interesting to write a roadmap wiki page to > > define what will be included in Karaf 3.0.0. > > I'm not sure if we want to work on an additional source here. I would > prefer > that we "layout" the 3.0.0 release directly in Jira setting issues to a > target > release? This helps organising us and always presenting the "state" of the > next > release... > > > For example, Karaf 3.0.0 could contain: > > - Karaf clustering and instances replication > > - Tooling (karaf maven plugin including dist, etc) > > - New deployer (wrapping jar, etc) > > > > Regarding this, it means that we should release Karaf 2.2.0 soon. > > +1, but well, we're only waiting for Aries to get out :) > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On 01/13/2011 09:35 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > >I think we've agreed that Karaf 3.x would support JDK 1.6 only. > > >Now, I'm wondering if we should rename 2.2 into 3.0 ;-) > > >Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > >2011/1/4 Łukasz Dywicki<[email protected]> > > > > > >>Hi all, > > >> > > >>Some time ago I created issue KARAF-328 which is sticky card about JVM > > >>version policy. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Now I am a bit confused because I would like get rid XML parsing from > > >>feature service and switch it to JAXB while working on KARAF-53. I know > > >>that > > >>build is made on JVM 1.5 and this change will broke capability with > older > > >>virtual machines. I wouldn't force anyone to upgrade but moving to new > JVM > > >>version can simplify our life a bit. :-) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Note that CXF, ActiveMQ and Camel works with Java 1.5. We have JRE 1.5 > and > > >>JRE 1.6 profiles in jre.properties. From my point of view it is not a > > >>problem to stay with 1.5 but if it make sense to stay with version > which is > > >>supported only if you pay Oracle for? As another note - JVM 1.5 was > > >>released > > >>in May 2004 and it is 6 year old. What do you think about that? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>Best regards, > > >> > > >>Lukasz > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > -- *Ioannis Canellos* http://iocanel.blogspot.com Integration Engineer @ Upstream S.A. <http://www.upstreamsystems.com>
