Mhm.. Since this thread is trailing off a little bit; just come back to the point: anyone any problem if I delay KARAF-482 and KARAF-504 to 3.x only?
Kind regards, Andreas On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jamie G. <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm liking Ioannis Canellos' Hazelcast clustering project for Karaf 3.x: > http://iocanel.blogspot.com/2011/03/karaf-clustering-using-hazelcast.html > > He currently has a working implementation for 2.2.x, perhaps that > might be something to introduce to 2.3.x if that branch comes into > being? (that's of course assuming that Ioannis would like to donate it > to Karaf) > > Cheers, > Jamie > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I'm unsure about the 3.0 version also. >> There are certain things on the road-map which are still not fully >> discussed >> for example the clustering thing. At least I didn't see anything on the >> mailing-list >> for this :) >> From my feeling we are not at close to a 3.0 version yet. >> Probably need a 2.3 then I guess, on the other hand we stated that we do >> switch >> to Java 6 and since Java 7 is on the road we really should get some >> momentum on this :) >> >> Regards, Achim >> >> Am 09.04.2011 15:05, schrieb Andreas Pieber: >>> Mhm... I've no problems by delaying 3.x longer, but in this case I >>> think we may should also develop on a 2.3.x release? There are already >>> (and there will be more over the next weeks) features on 3.x branch >>> (which could be backported easily) which are very valuable and which >>> we could/should make available faster. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Andreas >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jamie G. <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I'm partial to the mantra of "release early, release often", but I'd >>>> say we should at least be talking 2 months out for Karaf 3.0.0. >>>> >>>> I've been holding off starting up the user survey just to give the >>>> development direction of the 3.x branch some time to come into focus. >>>> If it is felt that we should accelerate however then perhaps this >>>> survey project can be bumped up the priority list. >>>> >>>> I'm also keeping in mind that we have a 2.2.1 and 2.1.5 release >>>> already on the work queue, so some community dev cycles are going to >>>> be allocated to those over the next few weeks, instead of focussing on >>>> trunk. >>>> >>>> As to the Karaf 3.x for m3 and Karaf 2.x for m2 compatibility, I'm >>>> liking the idea. Karaf 2.x is already the JDK 1.5 compatible line, >>>> we'd just redefine it as the JDK 1.5 / m2 line. Karaf 3.x being JDK >>>> 1.6+, m3. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Jamie >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hey guys, >>>>> >>>>> We're having some open issues belonging to mvn3 (KARAF-504, >>>>> KARAF-482). IMHO we should rather make karaf-3 available quite soon >>>>> (1-2 month), fix all m3 issues there and define karaf-2.x officially >>>>> compatible to m2? WDYT? >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> Andreas >>>>> >> >> >
