Nate,

We don't have such a guide available at the moment.  It would probably
boil down to the sum of the migration guides for the changes in the
different components (e.g. the migration guides for Camel 2.8.4 to
Camel 2.10.4 plus the ones for Karaf, Camel and CXF).  Let me try to
add a migration guide page with the links to these documents from the
other projects later today, so at least we can point you towards an
convenient starting point.

Don't hesitate to get back in touch if you encounter any problems or
difficulties during the upgrade.  Any kind of documentation or
information you could share at the end of the process, would
definitely be a good addition to this migration guide page.


Thanks,

Gert Vanthienen


On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:10 PM, nathan chu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have an existing ESB-type application assembly using servicemix
> 4.4.1 as a base, and built by maven.  I'm interested in updating the
> underlying servicemix version to 4.5.1 to pick up a few helpful
> features (in the layman's sense of the term, not specific Features),
> such as generic http-conduit configuration.
>
> I am able to generate an assembly that starts up a servicemix
> instance, however, all of my bundles stay in 'Grace Period' state with
> various namespace issues.  I have tried several permutations of
> features and dependencies with varying degrees of success - none of
> which could be classified as "actual success".
>
> The initial issues I was seeing was messages like this:
>> waiting for namespace handlers 
>> [http://camel.apache.org/schema/blueprint/cxf, 
>> http://camel.apache.org/schema/blueprint]
>
> I was wondering if there is a document or guide to the process of
> upgrading to 4.5.1 - it seems that there are many changes in the
> component pieces that may need to be taken into account.  one small
> example is the change from camel-activemq to activemq-camel.  If no
> such guide exists, I can try to document my process (and post more
> focused, technical questions here).
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
>
> Nate

Reply via email to