Well I'm glad I'm not the only one.
The disparity between camel and cxf was the biggest issue, since camel
overrides the cxf feature with other versions.
In the customer case I resolved it with using karaf features + camel features,
that at least got the cxf bundles in cleanly - but with an older
On Wednesday, October 19, 2011 10:13:23 AM Gert Vanthienen wrote:
> L.S.,
>
> Yeah, we are moving in the right direction there, so nice work! One thing I
> bumped into while doing a bit of a refactoring of the servicemix features
> codebase, was the fact that some features descriptors contain a re
L.S.,
Using the OBR resolver without helps a bit already, but in only helps in one
direction. If you first install the newer bundle version (e.g. Spring
3.0.6), the OBR resolver will avoid installing 3.0.5 again. But if the
first feature defines an older version (Spring 3.0.5) and you second fe
L.S.,
Yeah, we are moving in the right direction there, so nice work! One thing I
bumped into while doing a bit of a refactoring of the servicemix features
codebase, was the fact that some features descriptors contain a reference to
another one, e.g. the camel features descriptor refers to the cxf
I ran into this when filling the repos for an offline system.
But yep, obr solves many of the issues.
/je
On Oct 15, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> Using obr without repos already helps a lot as the featurzs deployer will
> only deploy the required bundles avoiding duplicates if poss
Using obr without repos already helps a lot as the featurzs deployer will
only deploy the required bundles avoiding duplicates if possible.
On Saturday, October 15, 2011, Johan Edstrom wrote:
> Yup,
>
> I probably had spent another few days without that previous knowledge, it
is still
> in need o
Yup,
I probably had spent another few days without that previous knowledge, it is
still
in need of work.
And using the OBR given the complexity I think personally is a no-go right now,
it isn't simple enough, nor do we have a global OBR repo.
I did ask Tim O'Brien about a new sonatype OBR re
On Friday, October 14, 2011 11:58:26 PM Johan Edstrom wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Just poking around in the features, and yes I cross post this -
>
> I know there has been work going on with regards to creating a sane default
> set of features but currently the CXF features in 2.4.2 (I think it was)
> uses
