camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL]
Date Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:18:08 GMT
I just ran the itest-osgi-karaf with the latest patch, and found current 
PaxExam doesn't support to load two features with different versions or 
load the features from other features file, so current camel osgi 
integration tests doesn't work with the patched camel-feature.

I'm not sure how the Karaf tests it feature file, maybe JB can help me 
resolve this kind of issue.

As we may need to use new version of PaxExam to load the karaf 2.2.0 
features file, it will take some time for us to fix the tests. My 
suggestion is we ship the features which supports Karaf 2.1.4 as a 
verified feature, and leave the features of Karaf 2.2.0 as an experiment 
release.
In Camel 2.8.0 we can drop the support of Karaf 2.1.4.

Any thought?


On 3/14/11 11:57 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> Agree Hadrian,
>
> I think it's more "logical" to have:
> - Camel 2.7 supports only Karaf 2.2.x
> - ServiceMix 4.4.0 (powered by Karaf 2.2.x) will ship Camel 2.7
> - if users want to stay with Karaf 2.1.x, they have to use Camel 2.6
>
> It sounds like a good plan for me :)
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 03/14/2011 03:55 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>> If that's the case, this looks to me like not very useful. I am not
>> against it, but it seems like a nice to have unnecessary effort. Users
>> can use 2.6.0 with karaf 2.1.x. Since in 2.7.0 we break compatibility
>> with so many technologies, like Java 1.5. and Spring 2.5.x, to me
>> Karaf 2.1.x is just a drop in the bucket. That's of course based on
>> the assumption that very few will use the deprecated 2.1.x in
>> production. It takes weeks to months to roll a new version (of Camel
>> or anything else) in production.
>>
>> My $0.02,
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2011, at 3:41 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> It could make sense for the Camel 2.7. For 2.1.x Karaf compliant
>>> features descriptor, the main changes are:
>>> - the name of the jetty feature and jetty version used
>>> - the avoid of resolver
>>>
>>> I will add this feature descriptor patch.
>>>
>>> However, I think that for Camel 2.8, we have to "break" the Karaf
>>> 2.1.x compatibility. Karaf 2.2.0 is now the stable release, Karaf
>>> 2.1.x will go to deprecation soon :)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>> On 03/13/2011 07:50 AM, Willem Jiang wrote:
>>>> +1 for the 3.a, and we need to make sure the Feature file is working
>>>> rightly.
>>>>
>>>> I think we can provide another Feature.xml file like we did in Camel
>>>> 2.6.0 to support the spring 2.5.x.
>>>> In this case we could just provide another Features.xml which supports
>>>> the Karaf 2.1.4 etc.
>>>>
>>>> Willem
>>>>
>>>> On 3/12/11 2:07 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>>>>> We knew this patch will go in, now or 2.8.0 which meant that the
>>>>> compatibility with karaf 2.1.x will be broken at some point. There is
>>>>> no real difference if we do it now or in 2.8.0 if 2.8.0 is released
>>>>> soon. If 2.8.0 is released much later, we give users something that is
>>>>> java6, spring3, etc and also karaf 2.1 compatible (which 2.6.0 does
>>>>> already anyway), but we could negatively impact smx 4.4. Traditionally
>>>>> during the Camel lifetime we played very nice with other communities,
>>>>> especially those that rely directly on Camel.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, my proposal is this:
>>>>> 1. We keep Jean Baptiste's patch.
>>>>> 2. JB opened and KARAF-505 and will commit a patch soon. As of the
>>>>> next Karaf 2.1.5 the compatibility will be restored.
>>>>> 3. We release Camel 2.7.0 either:
>>>>> a. after a few days of testing (per Christian proposal, +1'd by
>>>>> Claus); the only impact of the patch is using the new obr features in
>>>>> Karaf 2.2.0 (which was tested, contrary to allegations), no other
>>>>> impacts; this leaves a few weeks of incompatibility from the Camel
>>>>> release to the Karaf 2.1.5 release
>>>>> b. after the Karaf 2.1.5 release
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I am ok with either 3a or 3b opting slightly towards 3a. If
>>>>> you have other proposals or a preference please speak up. I hope us to
>>>>> be in position to make a decision early next week.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 10, 2011, at 8:08 PM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, March 10, 2011, Christian
>>>>>> Schneider<cschneider@talend.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the same way as Claus. We should try to not add any
>>>>>>> functional changes a few days before a release. That is the only
way
>>>>>>> to make sure people have time to run their tests against the
code
>>>>>>> base to be released.
>>>>>>> I was already hesitant to commit my patch for the servlet on
friday.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I think we have two options for the features.xml issue. If
it is
>>>>>>> really important for 2.7.0 we do a new release with it included
in
>>>>>>> some days. If not we cut a release now with the reverted version,
>>>>>>> perhaps with Willems fixes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah as christian says i think we got two options.
>>>>>> 1) re cut release without the features patch
>>>>>> 2) apply the patch and postpone the release for a week or longer,
to
>>>>>> allow throughly testing of karaf 2.2.0 and camel 2.7. This also mean
>>>>>> camel 2.7 is not backwards comp. With karaf 2.1.x as stated by
>>>>>> jean in
>>>>>> the given jira ticket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if we go for 2 then we could fulfil the goal for apache smx 4.4 which
>>>>>> needs a camel with karaf 2.2 and that features patch. Although we
are
>>>>>> very likely to be able to cut a new camel 2.8 release beforehand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am traveling for the next two weeks, so you guys can have fun
>>>>>> without me policing.
>>>>>> In light of this and the fact smx 4,4 need the patch, i am okay for
>>>>>> either option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I think what we should do is define a code freeze some days
>>>>>>> before a release. During this time we should only commit bug
fixes
>>>>>>> but not functional changes. In a less formal way we already do
this.
>>>>>>> If we think this could slow down progress on the trunk then we
could
>>>>>>> at this point create a branch for the release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah we are usually good at having a slowdown up til the release
is
>>>>>> cut. This time we had five or more days, which was really good. The
>>>>>> last major func. Change was that servlet improvements which imho
is a
>>>>>> very good improvement. After this we fixed all the maven
>>>>>> archetypes so
>>>>>> they are working again. Other than that its bug fixes and test fixes
>>>>>> leading up till the cut time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>>>> Von: Claus Ibsen [mailto:claus.ibsen@gmail.com]
>>>>>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. März 2011 11:44
>>>>>>> An: dev@camel.apache.org
>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Camel 2.7.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Hadrian
>>>>>>> Zbarcea<hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see now that Willem already reverted the patch, not clear
why, I
>>>>>>>> assume just based on your feelings. I would be very interested
in
>>>>>>>> seeing Guillaume's opinion, as a Karaf/OSGi expert.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I really dont understand why you would think its "no brainer"
to
>>>>>>> make such a big change "seconds" before you cut the release.
>>>>>>> You are usually very good and careful when you do the releases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The ticket its not a blocker for the 2.7 release. And it was
already
>>>>>>> scheduled for Camel 2.8.
>>>>>>> And in terms of OSGi you have to be extra careful and test it
more
>>>>>>> thoroughly than a simpler fix in a plain Camel component.
>>>>>>> The OSGi tests runs at the end of the CI process and thus they
are
>>>>>>> more prone to not be run due test failures in pre-existing
>>>>>>> components.
>>>>>>> We all know it can be a little tricky to have CI 100% green.
>>>>>>> Hence its a good practice to also run those OSGi tests locally
once
>>>>>>> in a while to ensure it works well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Claus Ibsen
>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>> FuseSource
>>>>>> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
>>>>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>>>>> Twitter: davsclaus
>>>>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>>>>>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>


-- 
Willem
----------------------------------
FuseSource
Web: http://www.fusesource.com
Blog:    http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English)
          http://jnn.javaeye.com (Chinese)
Twitter: willemjiang

Mime
View raw message