2015-06-11 17:21 GMT+02:00 Jamie G. <jamie.goody...@gmail.com>: > 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 <gno...@apache.org> > 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 <j...@nanthrax.net>: > > > >> 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 > >> jbono...@apache.org > >> http://blog.nanthrax.net > >> Talend - http://www.talend.com > >> >
