2013/12/5 Łukasz Dywicki <l...@code-house.org> > <...> 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. <...> >
Could you rephrase please, I'm not sure to understand your thoughts ? > > 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 > >
