It looks good to me !
Thanks,
Regards
JB
On 06/11/2015 05:26 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
2015-06-11 17:21 GMT+02:00 Jamie G. <[email protected]>:
Long as the patched Karaf can handle the older specs too then all is good
:)
Definitely !
What I've done, is very simple. It's just about removing the unsupported
xml elements when parsing the xml for a 1.3.0 schema, so that jaxb won't
complain about them. It seems attributes that have no matching field is
not a problem...
Once the new spec is in place I'll talk to the SDN community about the
changes and help them migrate as well.
Cheers,
Jamie
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>
wrote:
So I started experimenting a bit, and the second solution seems to be
very
easy to implement.
I've been able to deploy an upgraded pax-web 4.2.3-SNAPSHOT with specific
Karaf 4 features and install pax-http without any problems (but the
change
of a few imports in karaf to support pax-web 4.x).
So unless there are objections, I'll go ahead and add degraded support
for
Karaf 4 features to Karaf 2.4 and 3.0 branches.
Once those are released, we should be able to migrate downstream projects
to leverage the new Karaf 4 features where it makes sense.
2015-06-11 9:47 GMT+02:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>:
Hi Guillaume,
I would do for the second one, I think it's easier and make sense for
backward compatibility.
Regards
JB
On 06/11/2015 08:51 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I want to work on a nice way to migrate to the new 1.3.0 schema for
features for downstream projects (pax-web, cxf, activemq, etc…).
I have two possible ways in mind which I'd like to discuss.
The first one would be to write an additional mojo for the maven plugin
which would translate the new 1.3.0 schema to older schemas, deleting
unsupported stuff. The mojo would thus generate an additional schema
with
a different classifier, either for the old schema, or for the new one.
Another way would be to add this translation tool inside a bug-fix
release
of older branches, so that the old feature service could support the
1.3.0
syntax. The drawback is that this would not work on already existing
releases obviously.
Or we could do both.
Fwiw, I haven't experimented yet on the translation, so for complex
features definition using the new schema, I'm not sure yet if the
translation will lead to usable results. As a last resort, if it's not
usable, the downstream projects can manually provide the two
repositories.
Thoughts ?
Guillaume Nodet
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[email protected]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[email protected]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
