Re: Cayenne 5.0 - getting rid of legacy

I agree. Though I suggest to keep it in the current untested mode for another cycle. Let's officially deprecate it in 5.0 and see if we get any feedback.

Andrus

> On Jul 7, 2022, at 2:46 PM, Nikita Timofeev <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Code itself is small and easy to maintain, as it doesn't do much. We
> just don't have a proper test suit for it and I'm sure not all Cayenne
> modules are compatible with OSGI, at least we have some non-unque
> packages (partially this would be resolved once we drop bunch of
> deprecated modules),
> If we keep it as is, is not much of a problem, I just don't like those
> parts with unknown state.
> 
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 7:02 PM Andrus Adamchik <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 5, 2022, at 2:00 PM, Nikita Timofeev <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Id like to add OSGi support to that removal list as well.
>> 
>> OSGi support was developed in response to a user request (should be somewhere in the mailing list archives). I have no idea if anyone is still using it, and I am generally unclear on the state of OSGi these days. So how hard is it to keep it around?
>> 
>> Andrus
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Nikita Timofeev