Mailing-List: contact dev-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@camel.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of bengt.rodehav@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.82.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: bengt.rodehav@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANZYW6aq0_CgGPu-_hcCVALumQ0WQtaNKY9j3m=SdU2cO=PgFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CANZYW6aB2MD1hf4RaO_qZtnjV0bD7L8Q0FxuNbGZDXLrzY0shQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<DCA435B8-6D48-48FF-971B-3865D88339D7@apache.org>
	<CANZYW6YibpesRxGO1F3EkiB_Loom_vHqYm+ANH5f1xat5irBDg@mail.gmail.com>
	<59E1535B-9066-4CA8-9DCC-66F4A8193CC3@apache.org>
	<CANZYW6aq0_CgGPu-_hcCVALumQ0WQtaNKY9j3m=SdU2cO=PgFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:36:08 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAJ0TPGK8_aPDju2LmUSzNXqKJH8xJ7jTQkFZazos5pDEeYmbKw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION]Camel Karaf/Blueprint Support Roadmap
From: Bengt Rodehav <bengt@rodehav.com>
To: dev@camel.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04448145f43b0c04cc268748

--f46d04448145f43b0c04cc268748
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Very interesting question for a user like me. I use the Karaf/Camel combo a
lot and have been waiting for Karaf 2.3.0 (about to be released now). I was
hoping that it would work well with the latest Camel version - which I'm
sure many users do. I guess that is not yet proven to be true then - or is
it?

/Bengt

2012/10/16 Scott England-Sullivan <sully6768@gmail.com>

> Hi Dan,
>
> Please disregard my last note.  PIBCAC... :)
>
> If we say state that we support Aries Blueprint 1.0.0, the only
> environment that currently offers that is Karaf 2.3.0.  Are we ready
> to state that Camel supports Karaf 2.3.0?  I know it is a stretch but
> inevitably endusers will make the leap.
>
> ses
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 15, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Scott England-Sullivan <sully6768@gmail.co=
m>
> wrote:
> >
> >> That was my thought until I ran the camel-itest-karaf project with
> >> Karaf 2.3.0-SNAPSHOT which generates a whole host of errors.  More
> >> investigation is required but it would seem that Camel, as of right
> >> now, either supports Karaf 2.2.9 or 2.3.0.
> >
> > Well, *THAT* is a completely different issue than a blueprint version
> discussion.   There are a LOT LOT more changes in Karaf 2.3 than just
> Blueprint 1.0.0.   It could be the specs jars behaving differently,
> blueprint, proxy, asm, jmx, pax-web, jetty, etc=85    2.3.0 was way way t=
o
> long coming and contains a lot more changes than it really should have.
> (IMO)
> >
> > IMO, it's most likely a test harness issue.   Talend has spent the last
> two months doing very extensive testing of CXF and Camel on the Karaf 2.3
> snapshots.   Thus, I'm fairly confident that Camel (and CXF) works fine
> with Karaf 2.3.   The internal test harnesses we use for our test suites
> have been updated for Karaf 2.3.   I don't know what may be required to g=
et
> things working well for Camel.     For example, with 2.3, the customer
> jre.properties file we use in the camel test harness is definitely not
> needed and may even be causing problems.
> >
> > It's definitely something we need to look at, but is a completely
> different issue than blueprint version support.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 15, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Scott England-Sullivan <
> sully6768@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hello all,
> >>>>
> >>>> There have been several requests and recommendations in various
> threads to
> >>>> upgrade camel-blueprint to Aries Blueprint 1.0.0.  Having been
> involved
> >>>> with several of them recently I started to review the impacts of thi=
s
> >>>> change.  I could be over-thinking this but I don't believe this
> upgrade
> >>>> should happen without a simultaneous upgrade of the Camel Karaf
> support to
> >>>> 2.3.0 as that is the first release to offer support for Aries
> Blueprint
> >>>> 1.0.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> This of course carries a risk of breaking backwards compatibility wi=
th
> >>>> Camel 2.10.x and its support of Karaf 2.2.9.
> >>>>
> >>>> Therefore I wanted to bring this forward to a larger audience and ge=
t
> input
> >>>> on whether or not this is a change desired for Camel 2.11 or is it
> >>>> something to look at further down the road.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There are two different parts to this:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Supporting 1.0.0
> >>>
> >>> 2) Dropping support for 0.3
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I really don't think the two of them are mutually exclusive.   The
> version range we currently use for the aries blueprint stuff is:
> >>>
> >>> org.apache.aries.blueprint;version=3D"[0.2,2)"
> >>>
> >>> and I know we've done fairly extensive testing of Camel with 1.0.0.
>  Thus, I think we can already claim that we support 1.0.0.    Thus, it's
> more of a question of #2.
> >>>
> >>> The real question is "What do we gain by dropping support for 0.3?"
> At this point, I think the answer is "something close to nothing".
>  However, it would prevent easy deployment on the way more widely used
> Karaf 2.2.x.   Thus, I would say there is no point in doing it at this ti=
me.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Daniel Kulp
> >>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> --
> >> Scott England-Sullivan
> >> Apache Camel Committer
> >> Principal Consultant / Sr. Architect | Red Hat, Inc.
> >> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
> >> Web:     fusesource.com | redhat.com
> >> Blog:     sully6768.blogspot.com
> >> Twitter: sully6768
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Scott England-Sullivan
> Apache Camel Committer
> Principal Consultant / Sr. Architect | Red Hat, Inc.
> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
> Web:     fusesource.com | redhat.com
> Blog:     sully6768.blogspot.com
> Twitter: sully6768
>

--f46d04448145f43b0c04cc268748--