camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Some thoughts about the architecture of camel
Date Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:46:24 GMT
I don't think the idea of 2 major releases in a year will fly. I am personally against it until
somebody convinces me otherwise.

I agree as well, that camel should move to spring 3.0. I am not convinced that it absolutely
implies a major release of camel (3.0). At this time I don't have a strong preference on this


On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:

> 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<>  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