Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-karaf-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-karaf-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2160617591 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:37:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 14184 invoked by uid 500); 17 Mar 2015 13:37:05 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-karaf-user-archive@karaf.apache.org Received: (qmail 14140 invoked by uid 500); 17 Mar 2015 13:37:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@karaf.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@karaf.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@karaf.apache.org Received: (qmail 14129 invoked by uid 99); 17 Mar 2015 13:37:05 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:37:05 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_REDIR,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of arnaudeprez@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.212.176] (HELO mail-wi0-f176.google.com) (209.85.212.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:37:02 +0000 Received: by wifj2 with SMTP id j2so11232154wif.1 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:36:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=zrHDvL6ukMR9pE0IyNWIPhmTy29a4vDffSQY2SVb8jM=; b=RX4rq0PPX0IIio/7ay51zclRTOpJbikBdxWYUjR0hu/B/jiMydLKWRf8FinHMGo9/k Sx+9yY2TtkeTBBQLd951t5PsGiODVfTlAxzXPi1AZ6aWP/gcLkfoikfAdQ/S/I9YtKLA MX9ik1nxIvfP1DARn6jFYFPpo1Rw/+CB72tP0dkmz4BCo1U+YMCcc6oMU2GRyc+RgnSY lisKRFezej5tjJD0iwYs4GaHQj2CrEfXzbZwSPWvPvs4FP+aklW6sFvZ5Rql2HGdxGaC uPTcs1P5luBMzzYEpqw22yxPxWUNOKYYHwS/R0K3J4gY/iTkZ0SXmj9J0ruBNMX3c9PT sQnQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.195.12.167 with SMTP id er7mr135101304wjd.54.1426599401128; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:36:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.204.86 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:36:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1426520276201-4039091.post@n3.nabble.com> <5506FE53.6080705@nanthrax.net> <1426587812466-4039114.post@n3.nabble.com> <5508228B.1080306@nanthrax.net> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:36:41 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Karaf 3.0.3 OSGi Version From: Arnaud Deprez To: user@karaf.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb04bbe8a8a2705117c0efe X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7bb04bbe8a8a2705117c0efe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'd rather would like to see K4 released too but I don't know when it will be planned. As far as I know there are still lot of work to do for a K4 release. As I'm not (yet) involved in it, it's a supposition based on the changelog :-). Currently, I think there are some confusion with the actual version 2.4.Z and 3.0.Z. I think it's a bit strange to a lambda user that karaf 2.4.Z has a full support for OSGi 5 and Karaf 3.0.Z has only a partial support. So I think that - whether the documentation should be clearer to say that K3 will be abandoned - whether we should have a K3.1.Z release as JB said I think the solution 2 is better regarding the lambda user than the solution 1 but the work to do may be too hard if we have to throw it away regarding K4. I don't know actually. Regards, Arnaud 2015-03-17 13:51 GMT+01:00 Achim Nierbeck : > well, I guess that would be true as a minor version upgrade on the > framework would suggest a minor version bump on K3. > > tbh, I'd rather would like to see K4 released ... but it might be a > possible solution to have a lighter "upgrade" to it again. > > regards, Achim > > 2015-03-17 13:48 GMT+01:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofr=C3=A9 : > >> Hi Arnaud, >> >> if we move this way, it would make sense to go to Karaf 3.1.x as it's a >> major "update" on K3. >> >> But I think it makes sense. >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On 03/17/2015 01:42 PM, Arnaud Deprez wrote: >> >>> Hi JB, >>> >>> I think it makes sense to upgrade the felix framework in K3 at least to >>> be aligned with K2.4.Z in order to avoid confusion. >>> Or maybe K3 won't have any improvements and all the effort should be >>> concentrated on K4. >>> I think the documentation should be clearer for this topic, shouldn't i= t >>> ? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Arnaud >>> >>> 2015-03-17 11:23 GMT+01:00 agrz >> >: >>> >>> Thank you for the Clarification. >>> Alex >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Karaf-3-0-3-OSGi-Version- >>> tp4039091p4039114.html >>> Sent from the Karaf - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Jean-Baptiste Onofr=C3=A9 >> jbonofre@apache.org >> http://blog.nanthrax.net >> Talend - http://www.talend.com >> > > > > -- > > Apache Member > Apache Karaf Committer & PMC > OPS4J Pax Web Committer & > Project Lead > blog > Co-Author of Apache Karaf Cookbook > > Software Architect / Project Manager / Scrum Master > > --047d7bb04bbe8a8a2705117c0efe Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'd rather would like to see K4 released too but I don= 't know when it will be planned.
As far as I know there are still l= ot of work to do for a K4 release.
As I'm not (yet) involved = in it, it's a supposition based on the changelog :-).

Currently, I think there are some confusion with the actual version= 2.4.Z and 3.0.Z.
I think it's a bit strange to a lambda user= that karaf 2.4.Z has a full support for OSGi 5 and Karaf 3.0.Z has only a = partial support.

So I think that=C2=A0
<= ul>
  • whether the documentation should be clearer to say that K3 will be a= bandoned
  • whether we should have a K3.1.Z release as JB said
    I think the solution 2 is better regarding the lambda user than = the solution 1 but the work to do may be too hard if we have to throw it aw= ay regarding K4.
    • I don't know actually.

    <= /div>
    Regards,

    Arnaud

    2015-03-17 13:51 GMT+01:00 Ach= im Nierbeck <bcanhome@googlemail.com>:
    well, I guess that would be true as a m= inor version upgrade on the framework would suggest a minor version bump on= K3.=C2=A0

    tbh, I'd rather would like to see K4 rele= ased ... but it might be a possible solution to have a lighter "upgrad= e" to it again.=C2=A0

    regards, Achim=C2=A0

    2015-03-17 13:48 GMT+01:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofr=C3=A9 <jb@na= nthrax.net>:
    Hi Arnaud,

    if we move this way, it would make sense to go to Karaf 3.1.x as it's a= major "update" on K3.

    But I think it makes sense.

    Thoughts ?

    Regards
    JB

    On 03/17/2015 01:42 PM, Arnaud Deprez wrote:
    Hi JB,

    I think it makes sense to upgrade the felix framework in K3 at least to
    be aligned with K2.4.Z in order to avoid confusion.
    Or maybe K3 won't have any improvements and all the effort should be concentrated on K4.
    I think the documentation should be clearer for this topic, shouldn't i= t ?

    Regards,

    Arnaud

    2015-03-17 11:23 GMT+01:00 agrz <alexander.grzesik@medisite.de
     <mailto:alexander.grzesik@medisite.de>>:

    =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Thank you for the Clarification.
    =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Alex



    =C2=A0 =C2=A0 --
    =C2=A0 =C2=A0 View this message in context:
    =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://karaf.922171.n3.n= abble.com/Karaf-3-0-3-OSGi-Version-tp4039091p4039114.html=
    =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Sent from the Karaf - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com= .





    <= /div>--

    Apache Member

    Sof= tware Architect / Project Manager / Scrum Master=C2=A0

    =

    --047d7bb04bbe8a8a2705117c0efe--