[jira] [Resolved] (FELIX-5932) Configurator does not update existing Configurations

2018-09-18 Thread Carsten Ziegeler (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5932?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Carsten Ziegeler resolved FELIX-5932. - Resolution: Fixed For some reason the update algorithm always assumed that the update is

[jira] [Updated] (FELIX-5932) Configurator does not update existing Configurations

2018-09-18 Thread Carsten Ziegeler (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5932?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Carsten Ziegeler updated FELIX-5932: Fix Version/s: configurator-1.0.6 > Configurator does not update existing Configurations >

[jira] [Assigned] (FELIX-5932) Configurator does not update existing Configurations

2018-09-18 Thread Carsten Ziegeler (JIRA)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5932?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Carsten Ziegeler reassigned FELIX-5932: --- Assignee: Carsten Ziegeler > Configurator does not update existing Configurations >

[jira] [Created] (FELIX-5932) Configurator does not update existing Configurations

2018-09-18 Thread JIRA
Jürgen Albert created FELIX-5932: Summary: Configurator does not update existing Configurations Key: FELIX-5932 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5932 Project: Felix Issue

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Felix Parent POM and Http Projects

2018-09-18 Thread David Bosschaert
+1 David On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 at 20:44, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > As I needed to update the parent poms to the latest Apache parent pom > 21, I've included the parent pom in this vote. > > So this vote is about the release of > - Parent Pom 6 (updated to Apache parent 21) > - Http Parent Pom 12

Re: Breaking changes to CM PersistenceManager handling

2018-09-18 Thread Carsten Ziegeler
Got it and now I start to remember. This has been discussed in the mailing list and the issue. The javadoc you are referring to is in fact wrong. The old behaviour is gone, you can either use the default built in PM or you can specify that property and specify a name. THen this named PM needs to

Re: Breaking changes to CM PersistenceManager handling

2018-09-18 Thread Raymond Auge
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 3:12 AM Raymond Auge wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:02 AM Carsten Ziegeler > wrote: > >> Hi Ray, >> >> >> the name property and the below framework property have been introduced >> at the same time. The assumption here is, if you use named PMs, then you >>

Re: Breaking changes to CM PersistenceManager handling

2018-09-18 Thread Raymond Auge
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:02 AM Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > Hi Ray, > > > the name property and the below framework property have been introduced > at the same time. The assumption here is, if you use named PMs, then you > specify that property to select the right one. And vice versa of course, >