range. Since the Jetty 9 effort is new,
>> I suggest we choose a new symbolic name for it and keep the existing one for
>> the "Java 6 compatible fork".
>>
>> Greetings, Marcel
>>
>>
>> From: paul.bak
e existing one for the "Java 6 compatible fork".
Greetings, Marcel
From: paul.bakker...@gmail.com on behalf of Paul Bakker
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 9:16 AM
To: dev@felix.apache.org
Subject: Re: Upgrading to Jetty 9
A major version bump i
ot;Java 6 compatible fork".
>
> Greetings, Marcel
>
>
> From: paul.bakker...@gmail.com on behalf of Paul
> Bakker
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 9:16 AM
> To: dev@felix.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Upgrading to Jetty 9
>
> A major v
9:16 AM
To: dev@felix.apache.org
Subject: Re: Upgrading to Jetty 9
A major version bump is justified when the bundle doesn't work in
environments that previously did work. Note that we're talking about the
bundle version, not about package versions. Even the last release (2.3.0)
should h
A major version bump is justified when the bundle doesn't work in
environments that previously did work. Note that we're talking about the
bundle version, not about package versions. Even the last release (2.3.0)
should have been a major bump; it now requires extra bundles to be
installed containin
2014-07-28 8:35 GMT+02:00 Felix Meschberger :
>
> If possible, I'd rather create two artifacts from the same project, if at
> all possible: One embedding Jetty 8 (supporting Java 6) and one embedding
> Jetty 9 (requiring Java 7).
>
>
Yes, that's my preference as well and afaik that's what we are c
Hi
The question really is whether the _internal_ upgrade of the Jetty bundle to
Jetty 9 really is a major change for the Http Service functionality ?
Backwards compatibility is not expected to be hampered. The only difference,
apart from the new features offered potentially by Jetty 9, such as
Hi,
there is an issue that deals with upgrading jetty to 9.x [0]. As it
requires java 7, it is not a trivial update. basically the question
is:
- create 2 bundles: org.apache.felix.http.[jetty8|jetty9]
- or update the maven artifact version to 3.0.0 (from 2.4.x)
I would tend to the later
reg
