The jars from cxf tools are no more OSGi bundles. It will be corrected with CXF 3.0.2 (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cxf-dev/201408.mbox/%3CetPan.53fe971a.66334873.10b@localhost%3E).
We will have the again problem with 2 cxf versions (3.0.1 and 3.0.2), but 3.0.2 will win while installing. If we can live with this (until next Camel release using 3.0.2) we can wait for 3.0.2. Best regards Krzysztof On 23.09.2014 10:26, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > +1 > > but maybe wait for CXF 3.0.2 as I remember to have seen an issue with > CXF 3.0.1 (one artifact is not an OSGi bundle, not sure if it's in CXF > 3.0.0 or 3.0.1). > > Regards > JB > > On 09/23/2014 10:21 AM, Sobkowiak, Krzysztof wrote: >> Hi >> >> We have decided to upgrade 5.2.0 (Karaf 2.3.x), 5.3.0 (Karaf 2.4.x) and >> 6.0.0 (Karaf 3.0.x) to Camel 2.14.0. This Camel version has following >> dependencies >> >> * ActiveMQ: 5.10.0 -- no changes necessary >> * CXF: 3.0.1 -- we use currently 2.7.11 >> >> Is it ok if we use new CXF major version in ServiceMix minor version >> upgrade (5.2.x and 5.3.x; 6.0.x is ok). We could also use 2.7.12 in the >> 5.2.x and 5.3.x (as Camel uses version range [2.7,4.0) for cxf in >> feature dependencies), but it uses the fixed version 3.0.1 for cxf >> features repository. In this case we will have 2 cxf versions available >> in ServiceMix from which the version 3.0.1 will win while installing >> camel features requiring cxf features. >> >> I propose the upgrade to CXF 3.0.1 in all branches upgraded to Camel >> 2.14.0. >> >> Wdyt? >> >> Regards >> Krzysztof >> >> >> On 02.09.2014 15:06, Gert Vanthienen wrote: >>> Hi Krzysztof, >>> >>> >>> That looks good to me. For the Karaf 2.4.0 upgrade, I agree it would >>> be nice if users could choose whether or not they want to do that >>> along with the upgrade to Camel 2.14.0 - some users might prefer to >>> bite the bullet once but others might prefer a more gradual approach. >>> How about we keep the plan for 5.0.4, 5.1.2 and 6.0.0 as you suggested >>> and instead of doing just one 5.2.0 release, do two releases with >>> Camel 2.14.x: >>> >>> We could do a >>> - 5.2.0 with Camel 2.14.0 and Karaf 2.3.7 >>> - 5.3.0 with Camel 2.14.0 and Karaf 2.4.0. >>> >>> That way, people can choose which version of Karaf to use with Camel >>> 2.14.x. That would give people some extra time to migrate to the newer >>> version of Karaf if they need it - for the next minor version of Camel >>> (2.15.0), we should drop support for Karaf 2.3.x and only use Karaf >>> 2.4.x though to avoid we end up with an entire matrix of version >>> combinations to support/release. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Gert Vanthienen >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> Camel community plans 2.14.0 release soon. I'd like to propose >>>> following: >>>> >>>> 1. 5.0.4 with Camel 2.12.x - still waiting for Karaf 2.3.7 >>>> 2. 5.1.2 with Camel 2.13.x- still waiting for Karaf 2.3.7 >>>> 3. 5.2.0 with Camel 2.14.x- Karaf 2.4.0 >>>> 4. 6.0.0 with Camel 2.14.x - Karaf 3.0.2 >>>> >>>> It would be also nice to release ServiceMix with Karaf 2.3.x and Camel >>>> 2.14.x. It would be nice to release it as 5.2.0. But 5.2.0 should be >>>> with Karaf 2.4.0. What if we would like to make a release with Camel >>>> 2.15.x and Karaf 2.3.x? Should we do a release based on Karaf 2.3.x >>>> and >>>> Camel higher than 2.13.x? If yes, we should change versioning of >>>> ServiceMix >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> Krzysztof >>>> >> > -- Krzysztof Sobkowiak JEE & OSS Architect | Technical Architect @ Capgemini | Committer @ ASF Capgemini <http://www.pl.capgemini.com/> | Software Solutions Center <http://www.pl.capgemini-sdm.com/> | Wroclaw e-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> | Twitter: @KSobkowiak Calendar: http://goo.gl/yvsebC
