camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Some thoughts about the architecture of camel
Date Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:34:55 GMT
  I have no problem with a 3.0 release for spring and jkd upgrades.  I 
also like the idea that camel 3.x needs spring 3.x.

To also be able to do some breaking changes in the near future I propose 
to do a 4.0 release earlier than planned. I think end of Q2 2011 could 
be reasonable. We can start experimenting in a branch asap and try to 
settle on the featureset for 4.0 till end of Q1. Then we should have 
enough time to make it stable.

Best regards

Christian


Am 19.10.2010 16:21, schrieb James Strachan:
> On 19 October 2010 15:06, Hadrian Zbarcea<hzbarcea@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> If you think it's a good idea, and I agree, then 3.0 *is* the right time to do it.
It's some 5-6 months away, there's plenty of time and I expect us to get a lot of help from
the growing community.
>>
>> Pushing this for 4.0 is much less realistic, we won't have another major release
in 2011. I also agree that we should be backwards compatible as much as possible, but the
truth is this is a major version and should come with major improvements. Moving to a major
release of a dependent jar, is not a major improvement we do it all the time (even if the
dependency is spring).
>>
>> We need to first agree how 3.0 will be a major improvement.
> We've already said, moving (like many of our dependencies) to Spring 3
> and JDK 6 is a pretty big jump folks need to be aware of; its not a
> minor incremental feature release.
>
>
>> Setting a release time and have that contain whatever we manage to code until then
sounds to me like Microsoft in its early days.
> I've no idea what you're talking about to be honest. Why are you so
> hung up with clinging to 2.6 when we're making a clear, big dependency
> jump to Java 6 and Spring 3?
>
> Try putting yourself in the position of a user; in Camel up to now you
> can move from 2.x to 2.(x+1) without worrying too much about it, it
> mostly just works. For 3.x we want folks to ponder for second about
> JDK and Spring dependencies. OK?
>

-- 
----
http://www.liquid-reality.de


Mime
View raw message