Not sure about this commit
This commit would make this area of the code NOT work at all with CXF 2.5.x
and older. I'm personally OK with that since 2.10 is primarily tested with
2.6, but I'm not sure if that's the ideal situation. If it is, then the
OSGi import ranges for CXF need updat
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> Not sure about this commit
>
> This commit would make this area of the code NOT work at all with CXF 2.5.x
> and older. I'm personally OK with that since 2.10 is primarily tested with
> 2.6, but I'm not sure if that's the ideal situation
Am 10.05.12 16:41 schrieb "Claus Ibsen" unter :
>On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>
>> Not sure about this commit
>>
>> This commit would make this area of the code NOT work at all with CXF
>>2.5.x
>> and older. I'm personally OK with that since 2.10 is primarily tested
We don't make claims from a Camel side.
CXF makes the claims on that, if we can adhere to a range, we certainly
I think should do so in an integration framework.
Deciding what others could / should do when there is opportunity for choice
tends
to be the wrong way in my humble opinion.
/je
On M
On Thursday, May 10, 2012 07:42:28 PM Babak Vahdat wrote:
> Am 10.05.12 16:41 schrieb "Claus Ibsen" unter :
> >On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> >> Not sure about this commit
> >>
> >> This commit would make this area of the code NOT work at all with CXF
> >>2.5.x
> >> and
Hi Dan,
reading through the following lines:
> In the integration space, we kind of have to expect and support various
> levels of integration with various technologies.
I do completely agree with you, BUT
> Different users will be trying to integrate with different versions of
> things
> and
