Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of sberyozkin@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.215.169 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4FC3B31D.4060506@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 18:17:17 +0100
From: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: Thoughts about DOSGI 1.3.2 release
References: <4FC3A916.3000001@gmail.com>
 <CAMit8So3E1bALjKey+XK-i14cSN=eSNkNQbgRo1T3LPa_-YHNA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMit8So3E1bALjKey+XK-i14cSN=eSNkNQbgRo1T3LPa_-YHNA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi David
On 28/05/12 18:09, David Bosschaert wrote:
> Sounds good, Sergey. I'm all for releasing frequently.
>
> One of the things that I think would be good to tackle is to migrate
> to OSGi Blueprint (from of the current Spring-based approach). Is that
> something that you were thinking of looking at?
>
Not really. Some users would like to use Blueprint but not be bound to 
Aries. So for me it's a DOSGI 1.4 level issue which will require a 
significant time investment.

Cheers, Sergey
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
> On 28 May 2012 17:34, Sergey Beryozkin<sberyozkin@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I'm thinking of starting working toward releasing DOSGI 1.3.2.
>> I think I'll spend the next 2 or months on fixing few issues I can find some
>> time for, given that there's a lot of other CXF/etc work that needs to be
>> taken care of.
>> I'd like to suggest that the next release will be 1.3.2 as opposed to 1.4.0.
>> Moving to CXF 2.6.1 at the DOSGI level will be a pretty major effort, giving
>> that a minimal bundle in CXF 2.6.x has gone.
>>
>> It seems that there are still quite a few issues there that are important to
>> be fixed for the base/simple DOSGI applications to work reliably and given
>> that 2.5.x branch is still relatively 'young', I'd probably prefer to stay
>> on 2.5.x (2.5.4 for DOSGI 1.3.2 and might be CXF 2.5.5/2.5.6 for DOSGI
>> 1.3.3), simply to make the most of the limited time that I will be able to
>> spend on DOSGi, before making a major switch to CXF 2.6.x - and hoping by
>> that time many of the 'basic' DOSGI features have been fixed...
>>
>> Thanks, Sergey
>>