I am late for this discussion, however will try to put my fingers here. :) I think that doing souch change in Karaf 3.1 will be good steep, since it's too late for closest release. If we would step off blueprint then I do not consider DS or SCR as an alternative to blueprint since it's just another dependency and XML to maintain. Some users were requesting support for gemini, since we will be blueprint free it will be easier to build support for that.
Cheers, Lukasz Wiadomość napisana przez Ioannis Canellos <ioca...@gmail.com> w dniu 5 gru 2013, o godz. 18:13: >> Right now, there isn’t a “blueprint” feature that CXF can depend on. We >> can add one for 3.1 or 4.0, but if CXF then depends on it, then it would no >> longer load into any 2.3.x Karaf without also doing a 2.3.x release. >> That’s mostly my point, removing something that is there by default in 2.3 >> or 3.0 WILL have user impact. It’s not a major one, but it is something >> that needs to be considered on how to manage it, particularly for frameworks >> that tend to try and keep a range of compatible Karaf versions supported. > > Regardless of the version that we introduce the change, the described > impact is unavoidable. > Since we do have 2 distributions (main & minimal) we could keep > blueprint by default in the main, add a blueprint feature in all new > releases (3.x and 2.x) and at some point in the future we can revisit > (when we have a decent range of karaf versions with the blueprint > feature in it). > > -- > Ioannis Canellos > > Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com > Twitter: iocanel
