You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> on 2016/09/20 13:06:37 UTC

Karaf 3?

Looking at Guillaume’s changes for CXF-7060, I have to wonder one thing:

For 3.2, do we still need support for Karaf 3?    Karaf 4 has been out for a while and I believe most folks have migrated.   If we don’t need support for Karaf 3.x the changes Guillaume is doing can be simplified greatly and we can avoid all the duplication between the two features.xml files and such.


Thoughts?

-- 
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org <ma...@apache.org> - http://dankulp.com/blog <http://dankulp.com/blog>
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com <http://coders.talend.com/>

Re: Karaf 3?

Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <sb...@gmail.com>.
Hi

It may indeed make sense to drop Karaf 3 related modules from 3.2.0.

Few other modules are being considered as candidates for being removed 
from 3.2.0 in the other dev thread - and as suggested there we can 
always restore the removed modules if really needed.

Thanks, Sergey


On 20/09/16 14:06, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> Looking at Guillaume\u2019s changes for CXF-7060, I have to wonder one thing:
>
> For 3.2, do we still need support for Karaf 3?    Karaf 4 has been out for a while and I believe most folks have migrated.   If we don\u2019t need support for Karaf 3.x the changes Guillaume is doing can be simplified greatly and we can avoid all the duplication between the two features.xml files and such.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>

Re: Karaf 3?

Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>.
It looks like nobody objects, so I'll go ahead and drop Karaf 3 support.

2016-09-20 22:48 GMT+02:00 Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>:

> Sounds good to me.
> It would be obviously easier to maintain.
>
> 2016-09-20 15:06 GMT+02:00 Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>:
>
>> Looking at Guillaume’s changes for CXF-7060, I have to wonder one thing:
>>
>> For 3.2, do we still need support for Karaf 3?    Karaf 4 has been out
>> for a while and I believe most folks have migrated.   If we don’t need
>> support for Karaf 3.x the changes Guillaume is doing can be simplified
>> greatly and we can avoid all the duplication between the two features.xml
>> files and such.
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> dkulp@apache.org <ma...@apache.org> - http://dankulp.com/blog <
>> http://dankulp.com/blog>
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com <
>> http://coders.talend.com/>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Red Hat, Open Source Integration
>
> Email: gnodet@redhat.com
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>
>


-- 
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Red Hat, Open Source Integration

Email: gnodet@redhat.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

Re: Karaf 3?

Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>.
Sounds good to me.
It would be obviously easier to maintain.

2016-09-20 15:06 GMT+02:00 Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>:

> Looking at Guillaume’s changes for CXF-7060, I have to wonder one thing:
>
> For 3.2, do we still need support for Karaf 3?    Karaf 4 has been out for
> a while and I believe most folks have migrated.   If we don’t need support
> for Karaf 3.x the changes Guillaume is doing can be simplified greatly and
> we can avoid all the duplication between the two features.xml files and
> such.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org <ma...@apache.org> - http://dankulp.com/blog <
> http://dankulp.com/blog>
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com <
> http://coders.talend.com/>
>



-- 
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Red Hat, Open Source Integration

Email: gnodet@redhat.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/