Hi, Switching to depend on Oak 1.7 requires upgrading oak-server to use 1.7 or later. There has been some incompatible changes at a bundle level and package level between 1.6 and 1.7 so its not as simple has changing the versions. For instance oak-api bundle didnt existi in 1.6 and NodeAggregator class doesn't appear to exist in 1.7. oak-server wont build without a patch.
Obviously, if you have an oak-server or equivalent that already depends on 1.7 or later, then its trivial, but Sling doesn't. Best Regards Ian On 11 October 2017 at 11:07, Stefan Egli <[email protected]> wrote: > Having said that, the only bullet to bite when switching to Oak 1.7.x is > increased maintenance effort: the affected bundles will become backwards > incompatible wrt Oak 1.6.x and if they need to be patched it would not be > possible to do so in trunk anymore. > > Cheers, > Stefan > > On 11/10/17 12:03, "Stefan Egli" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Hi Ian, > > > >I don't see a problem with having a dependency on an unstable Oak 1.7.x in > >Sling. > > > >Actual deployments can still, independent of this, make a call whether or > >not they want to actually run on Oak 1.7.x or wait for Oak 1.8 (which is > >advisable). IMO having this dependency doesn't imply on which version it > >will ultimately run. > > > >Cheers, > >Stefan > > > >On 11/10/17 11:54, "Ian Boston" <[email protected] on behalf of > >[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>Hi, > >>Oak 1.7.x is Oak unstable release branch working towards 1.8. > >>I have a feature in SLING-7140 that is blocked by an API change in Oak > >>present in 1.8-SNAPSHOT and available as an unmerged but tested patch to > >>Oak 1.6.x. > >> > >>The Oak team are unwilling merge the patch to 1.6 and have asked that > >>Sling > >>depend on the latest release of Oak 1.7. > >> > >>How does the Sling team feel about this ? > >> > >>The patch for SLING-7140 cant be merged until the API is available in Oak > >>in some form and I don't want to depend on Oak 1.8-SNAPSHOT as this will > >>block Sling releases of the bundles involved. > >>Best Regards > >>Ian > > > > > > >
