Also +1 to having both groups. IMHO although smx started with karaf
the connection between them is getting weaker since karaf is used for
more and more non-smx/esb projects; This should also be reflected in
the groups IMHO.
Kind regards,
Andreas
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onof
Absolutely.
Karaf and ServiceMix is not exactly the same purpose.
It makes sense to have:
- ServiceMix group more ESB oriented, especially interesting to get
discussion around SMX5
- Karaf group more OSGi container oriented
Regards
JB
On 04/21/2011 07:32 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
We all kn
Agree that's it's the good time. As the next 3.0 will be a major
release, it's a good time to get feedback from users and community.
Regards
JB
On 04/21/2011 07:38 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
We've released 2.2.0 a few weeks ago and heading toward 3.0, so I
wonder if now would be a good time fo
On the JIRA entry there is an attached initial list of question ideas.
I'll start looking into the logistics of how other projects handled
surveys while we are discussing questions to include in the survey
itself.
Cheers,
Jamie
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jamie G. wrote:
> Aye, it would be
Aye, it would be a good time to start that up.
The JIRA entry for that is under Karaf - 406:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-406
Cheers,
Jamie
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> We've released 2.2.0 a few weeks ago and heading toward 3.0, so I
> wonder if now
We've released 2.2.0 a few weeks ago and heading toward 3.0, so I
wonder if now would be a good time for a survey ?
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 18:30, Jamie G. wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As part of planning for the future Apache Karaf 3.x line I think that
> we should consider running a user survey. A prec
We all know that a lot of ServiceMix users are interested in Karaf,
but that does not mean that there's no room for two separate groups
there. Wouldn't it make more sense to rename one of those to Apache
ServiceMix and keep the other one for Apache Karaf ?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 16:48, Charles
I'm not so sure. I wonder if we should make any use of pax-url-aether/mvn
optional and resolve mvn urls where the artifact is in system ourselves (any
use reference: urls here). This is what startup.properties does now.
So for any mvn url we:
1. check system and if found use that artifact
Jamie,
I name the group as Apache Karaf - Servicemix because ServiceMix name
is much more established then Karaf and karaf less but plan to rename
it later on into Apache Karaf no matter if it is related to
ServiceMix, Geronimo, Talend, ...
Regards,
Charles
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Jami
The Apache Karaf - Servicemix Integration platforms group is perfectly
fine as is, I just wanted to create a more expanded group for projects
which are not necessarily Servicemix related. So instead of creating
Karaf-Geronimo, Karaf-OpenTSB, Karaf-Camel, etc I decided to create a
more generic Karaf
Why do you create a new group : there is already a Apache Karaf -
ServiceMix group ?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Jamie G. wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've created an open join group for Apache Karaf on LinkedIn.
> http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Apache-Karaf-3881000
>
> It's for all users & uses of
Hi All,
I've created an open join group for Apache Karaf on LinkedIn.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Apache-Karaf-3881000
It's for all users & uses of Karaf, so please join the discussions,
network, and have fun :)
Cheers,
Jamie
I'm not sure. I think using aether has some benefits, but we need to
make sure that we can actually control what happens.
I guess the real downside is that we need to add maven metadata to the
system folder I think.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 22:29, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
> oh, I forgot about the mi
13 matches
Mail list logo
