Hi David,
The fact is that we increased the scope between our first discussion
about Karaf 3.0 and the current roadmap.
For instance, we decided to upgrade Karaf 3.0 to new version of Pax Web,
change the shell commands, included some required cleanup and
refactoring, upgrade to a new OSGi re
IIRC during the summer we all agreed that 3.0 would be released for sure,
certainly, without doubt, by the end of the summer, and everyone would
enthusiastically help get it out. I don't think that really happened.
I'd prefer that more effort go into releasing 3.0 with a finite set of changes
+1 for 2.3.x Karaf branch and drop jdk 1.5 support.
Freeman
On 2011-11-10, at 上午7:28, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Makes sense, let's drop jdk 5 then.
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 15:26, Jamie G.
wrote:
It occurs more often that our desired dependencies require JDK 6.
We've taken great care on the 2
Makes sense, let's drop jdk 5 then.
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 15:26, Jamie G. wrote:
> It occurs more often that our desired dependencies require JDK 6.
> We've taken great care on the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines to ensure JDK 5
> compatibility, if we drop this requirement on 2.3.x branch then it
> opens
Agree, I don't think it's required to maintain the JDK 1.5 on Karaf 2.3.x.
Regards
JB
On 11/10/2011 12:26 AM, Jamie G. wrote:
It occurs more often that our desired dependencies require JDK 6.
We've taken great care on the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines to ensure JDK 5
compatibility, if we drop this requ
It occurs more often that our desired dependencies require JDK 6.
We've taken great care on the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines to ensure JDK 5
compatibility, if we drop this requirement on 2.3.x branch then it
opens more opportunities to make things easier in transition to the
Karaf 3.0 (JDK 6 minimum) code
Not sure if forcing 1.6 is really required. Does that bring any value ?
Another way is does that even change anything for us ?
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 15:16, Jamie G. wrote:
> The concept of a 2.3.x branch to bridge the differences between 2.2.x
> and the to be 3.0.0 makes sense from the point
Karaf 2.3.x could stop the JDK 1.5 compatibility.
Regards
JB
On 11/10/2011 12:16 AM, Jamie G. wrote:
The concept of a 2.3.x branch to bridge the differences between 2.2.x
and the to be 3.0.0 makes sense from the point of view of providing
our user base an easier transition. I would like to kno
The concept of a 2.3.x branch to bridge the differences between 2.2.x
and the to be 3.0.0 makes sense from the point of view of providing
our user base an easier transition. I would like to know if we intend
to keep JDK 1.5 compatibility on 2.3.x or if we'll have to enforce an
update to JDK 1.6?
I think as the number of compatibility breaking stuff grows in the 3.x
branch, the more welcomed a 2.3 release will be.
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 14:54, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> we started to perform a bunch of changes on the Karaf trunk (future Karaf
> 3.0 branch): refactoring on
Hi all,
we started to perform a bunch of changes on the Karaf trunk (future
Karaf 3.0 branch): refactoring on the commands to introduce the
sub-shell, update to Pax Web 2.0 and Jetty 8, renaming on the commands,
new OSGi release, new Aries version, etc.
It means a huge change for the users.
11 matches
Mail list logo
