camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Schneider <>
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


Am 19.10.2010 16:21, schrieb James Strachan:
> On 19 October 2010 15:06, Hadrian Zbarcea<>  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?


View raw message