All the above comments are absolutely right. But Denis has made a good point. If you need to justify the upgrade with factors other than performance, security, etc., the speech will vary depending on if you intend to actively continue developing on top of Camel, or if the application is solely in "maintenance mode" for the remainder of its lifetime.
Is there ongoing development going on? Raúl. Sent from a mobile device On Sep 25, 2012 12:50 AM, "Denis Krizanovic" <denis.krizano...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the business case is very challenged for this kind of thing. If a > light bulb is working, should we replace it? > > Now, people will say.. but oh, what about the bugs that have been fixed.. > If you are not impacted by any, does it matter? Migrating can sometimes > involve significant regression testing, and who is going to pay for that, > if it's not completely automated. Completely automating the testing of > integration solutions is pretty hard and expensive. > > If you're doing work on the system, then upgrading the library as part of > the project should just happen? yes? Though again, you have to be careful > in understanding the test effort you might be exposing everyone to if you > do. > > > On 25 September 2012 04:16, anoordover <anoordo...@live.nl> wrote: > > > As a java-developer I think it is very important to migrate when new > > versions > > are released. > > Currently we are running camel 2.4.2. > > I think that we should migrate to 2.9 or 2.10, but I find it hard to > define > > a business-case for this. > > So "sell" that migration is neccesary. > > How should I support it that this is really needed. > > Any ideas? > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/business-case-for-migration-tp5719868.html > > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >
