[PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

Gert Vanthienen
Administrator
L.S.,


Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own
production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix
where we could support our user base by providing new packaging
options for Apache ServiceMix.

1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and
perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes.  Many people don't have a use
case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are
looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly.  I think it
would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal
distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and
leaves everything else there as optional features.  Given that we are
recommending the use of Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF over JBI/NMR ourselves a
lot, we should really have our distribution represent that
recommendation.  Over time, we might even consider making this the
default download and renaming the existing one to
apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi instead or something.

2). Another question we occasionally see on the mailing lists is from
users that are running ServiceMix on machines that don't have internet
access and that are having a hard time installing optional features.
In order to cater for that need, we could add an
apache-servicemix-4.x.0-full distribution that contains bundles for
all the features we ship with, regardless of whether they're installed
by default or not.  A quick test shows that it would become over 200
MB in size, which might make the release process a bit heavy, but one
other hand: there's definitely a user base for this kind of convenient
all-in-one download as well.

What do people think about adding these two packaging options?


Regards,

Gert Vanthienen
------------------------
FuseSource
Web: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
Regards,

Gert Vanthienen
------------------------
Open Source SOA: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

Geert Schuring
I totally agree, and have suggested this before with issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SMX4-721

Greets,
Geert.

2011/7/20 Gert Vanthienen <[hidden email]>

> L.S.,
>
>
> Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own
> production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix
> where we could support our user base by providing new packaging
> options for Apache ServiceMix.
>
> 1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and
> perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes.  Many people don't have a use
> case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are
> looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly.  I think it
> would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal
> distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and
> leaves everything else there as optional features.  Given that we are
> recommending the use of Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF over JBI/NMR ourselves a
> lot, we should really have our distribution represent that
> recommendation.  Over time, we might even consider making this the
> default download and renaming the existing one to
> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi instead or something.
>
> 2). Another question we occasionally see on the mailing lists is from
> users that are running ServiceMix on machines that don't have internet
> access and that are having a hard time installing optional features.
> In order to cater for that need, we could add an
> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-full distribution that contains bundles for
> all the features we ship with, regardless of whether they're installed
> by default or not.  A quick test shows that it would become over 200
> MB in size, which might make the release process a bit heavy, but one
> other hand: there's definitely a user base for this kind of convenient
> all-in-one download as well.
>
> What do people think about adding these two packaging options?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
> ------------------------
> FuseSource
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

Claus Ibsen-2
In reply to this post by Gert Vanthienen
+1 for both ideas.

I think it all helps users getting starting and using Apache
ServiceMix, which is all a good thing.

In the latter case we should also ensure any XML file for ActiveMQ,
Camel, Spring, Blueprint etc. does not cause the XML parser
to go online to validate the XML with the schema. I think in the past
there has been some odd issues with this.

So we may want to have a test where you disable internet :)



On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Gert Vanthienen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> L.S.,
>
>
> Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own
> production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix
> where we could support our user base by providing new packaging
> options for Apache ServiceMix.
>
> 1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and
> perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes.  Many people don't have a use
> case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are
> looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly.  I think it
> would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal
> distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and
> leaves everything else there as optional features.  Given that we are
> recommending the use of Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF over JBI/NMR ourselves a
> lot, we should really have our distribution represent that
> recommendation.  Over time, we might even consider making this the
> default download and renaming the existing one to
> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi instead or something.
>
> 2). Another question we occasionally see on the mailing lists is from
> users that are running ServiceMix on machines that don't have internet
> access and that are having a hard time installing optional features.
> In order to cater for that need, we could add an
> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-full distribution that contains bundles for
> all the features we ship with, regardless of whether they're installed
> by default or not.  A quick test shows that it would become over 200
> MB in size, which might make the release process a bit heavy, but one
> other hand: there's definitely a user base for this kind of convenient
> all-in-one download as well.
>
> What do people think about adding these two packaging options?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
> ------------------------
> FuseSource
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>



--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
FuseSource
Email: [hidden email]
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
In reply to this post by Gert Vanthienen
Hi Gert,

I'm agree that ServiceMix is premium pre-packaged container for
ActiveMQ/Camel/CXF. I'm also agree with the usage of SMX without
internet connection.

Waiting for Karaf profiles (that should be included in Karaf 3.0.0), we
can provide the following ServiceMix distribution:

- apache-servicemix-4.4.0 which is Karaf + ActiveMQ + CXF + Camel,
pre-packaged/pre-configured with a warranty of the integration of these
projects. The nmr/jbi features will be available as optional.
- apache-servicemix-4.4.0-nmr which is the previous distribution but nmr
feature is installed by default, and as a bootFeatures. The jbi feature
is still an optional one.
- apache-servicemix-4.4.0-full is the previous distribution but the
system repo contains all artifacts required to work offline.

WDYT Gert ?

Regards
JB

On 07/20/2011 05:16 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:

> L.S.,
>
>
> Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own
> production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix
> where we could support our user base by providing new packaging
> options for Apache ServiceMix.
>
> 1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and
> perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes.  Many people don't have a use
> case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are
> looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly.  I think it
> would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal
> distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and
> leaves everything else there as optional features.  Given that we are
> recommending the use of Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF over JBI/NMR ourselves a
> lot, we should really have our distribution represent that
> recommendation.  Over time, we might even consider making this the
> default download and renaming the existing one to
> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi instead or something.
>
> 2). Another question we occasionally see on the mailing lists is from
> users that are running ServiceMix on machines that don't have internet
> access and that are having a hard time installing optional features.
> In order to cater for that need, we could add an
> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-full distribution that contains bundles for
> all the features we ship with, regardless of whether they're installed
> by default or not.  A quick test shows that it would become over 200
> MB in size, which might make the release process a bit heavy, but one
> other hand: there's definitely a user base for this kind of convenient
> all-in-one download as well.
>
> What do people think about adding these two packaging options?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
> ------------------------
> FuseSource
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/

--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[hidden email]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

Guillaume Nodet
Administrator
In reply to this post by Gert Vanthienen
+1
I think it will definitely benefit our users.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 17:16, Gert Vanthienen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> L.S.,
>
>
> Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own
> production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix
> where we could support our user base by providing new packaging
> options for Apache ServiceMix.
>
> 1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and
> perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes.  Many people don't have a use
> case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are
> looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly.  I think it
> would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal
> distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and
> leaves everything else there as optional features.  Given that we are
> recommending the use of Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF over JBI/NMR ourselves a
> lot, we should really have our distribution represent that
> recommendation.  Over time, we might even consider making this the
> default download and renaming the existing one to
> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi instead or something.
>
> 2). Another question we occasionally see on the mailing lists is from
> users that are running ServiceMix on machines that don't have internet
> access and that are having a hard time installing optional features.
> In order to cater for that need, we could add an
> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-full distribution that contains bundles for
> all the features we ship with, regardless of whether they're installed
> by default or not.  A quick test shows that it would become over 200
> MB in size, which might make the release process a bit heavy, but one
> other hand: there's definitely a user base for this kind of convenient
> all-in-one download as well.
>
> What do people think about adding these two packaging options?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
> ------------------------
> FuseSource
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>



--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

Freeman-2
In reply to this post by Gert Vanthienen
+1 for both ideas.

Thanks
Freeman
On 2011-7-20, at 下午11:16, Gert Vanthienen wrote:

> L.S.,
>
>
> Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own
> production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix
> where we could support our user base by providing new packaging
> options for Apache ServiceMix.
>
> 1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and
> perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes.  Many people don't have a use
> case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are
> looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly.  I think it
> would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal
> distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and
> leaves everything else there as optional features.  Given that we are
> recommending the use of Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF over JBI/NMR ourselves a
> lot, we should really have our distribution represent that
> recommendation.  Over time, we might even consider making this the
> default download and renaming the existing one to
> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi instead or something.
>
> 2). Another question we occasionally see on the mailing lists is from
> users that are running ServiceMix on machines that don't have internet
> access and that are having a hard time installing optional features.
> In order to cater for that need, we could add an
> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-full distribution that contains bundles for
> all the features we ship with, regardless of whether they're installed
> by default or not.  A quick test shows that it would become over 200
> MB in size, which might make the release process a bit heavy, but one
> other hand: there's definitely a user base for this kind of convenient
> all-in-one download as well.
>
> What do people think about adding these two packaging options?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
> ------------------------
> FuseSource
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/

---------------------------------------------
Freeman Fang

FuseSource
Email:[hidden email]
Web: fusesource.com
Twitter: freemanfang
Blog: http://freemanfang.blogspot.com









Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

iocanel
I like both ideas a lot!

+1
--
*Ioannis Canellos*
*
 http://iocanel.blogspot.com

Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
Apache ServiceMix <http://servicemix.apache.org/>  Committer
*
Ioannis Canellos
http://iocanel.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

Corrado Campisano
+1 for me too

I've only been using 3.x with JBI since now, so I'd like to see how it works
with OSGi now!

best regards
Corrado Campisano


2011/7/21 Ioannis Canellos <[hidden email]>

> I like both ideas a lot!
>
> +1
> --
> *Ioannis Canellos*
> *
>  http://iocanel.blogspot.com
>
> Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
> Apache ServiceMix <http://servicemix.apache.org/>  Committer
> *
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

James Strachan
In reply to this post by Gert Vanthienen
+1 sounds good.

On 20 July 2011 16:16, Gert Vanthienen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> L.S.,
>
>
> Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own
> production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix
> where we could support our user base by providing new packaging
> options for Apache ServiceMix.
>
> 1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and
> perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes.  Many people don't have a use
> case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are
> looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly.  I think it
> would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal
> distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and
> leaves everything else there as optional features.  Given that we are
> recommending the use of Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF over JBI/NMR ourselves a
> lot, we should really have our distribution represent that
> recommendation.  Over time, we might even consider making this the
> default download and renaming the existing one to
> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi instead or something.
>
> 2). Another question we occasionally see on the mailing lists is from
> users that are running ServiceMix on machines that don't have internet
> access and that are having a hard time installing optional features.
> In order to cater for that need, we could add an
> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-full distribution that contains bundles for
> all the features we ship with, regardless of whether they're installed
> by default or not.  A quick test shows that it would become over 200
> MB in size, which might make the release process a bit heavy, but one
> other hand: there's definitely a user base for this kind of convenient
> all-in-one download as well.
>
> What do people think about adding these two packaging options?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
> ------------------------
> FuseSource
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>



--
James
-------
FuseSource
Email: [hidden email]
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

Open Source Integration and Messaging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

Daniel  Kulp
In reply to this post by Claus Ibsen-2
On Thursday, July 21, 2011 10:14:29 AM Claus Ibsen wrote:
> +1 for both ideas.
>
> I think it all helps users getting starting and using Apache
> ServiceMix, which is all a good thing.
>
> In the latter case we should also ensure any XML file for ActiveMQ,
> Camel, Spring, Blueprint etc. does not cause the XML parser
> to go online to validate the XML with the schema. I think in the past
> there has been some odd issues with this.

There still is.  We'll likely need to update Blueprint a bit in Aries to fix
this.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-626

Dan


>
> So we may want to have a test where you disable internet :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Gert Vanthienen
>
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > L.S.,
> >
> >
> > Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own
> > production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix
> > where we could support our user base by providing new packaging
> > options for Apache ServiceMix.
> >
> > 1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and
> > perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes.  Many people don't have a use
> > case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are
> > looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly.  I think it
> > would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal
> > distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and
> > leaves everything else there as optional features.  Given that we are
> > recommending the use of Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF over JBI/NMR ourselves a
> > lot, we should really have our distribution represent that
> > recommendation.  Over time, we might even consider making this the
> > default download and renaming the existing one to
> > apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi instead or something.
> >
> > 2). Another question we occasionally see on the mailing lists is from
> > users that are running ServiceMix on machines that don't have internet
> > access and that are having a hard time installing optional features.
> > In order to cater for that need, we could add an
> > apache-servicemix-4.x.0-full distribution that contains bundles for
> > all the features we ship with, regardless of whether they're installed
> > by default or not.  A quick test shows that it would become over 200
> > MB in size, which might make the release process a bit heavy, but one
> > other hand: there's definitely a user base for this kind of convenient
> > all-in-one download as well.
> >
> > What do people think about adding these two packaging options?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Gert Vanthienen
> > ------------------------
> > FuseSource
> > Web: http://fusesource.com
> > Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email]
http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

Matt Pavlovich
In reply to this post by Gert Vanthienen
+1

Re (1).. if there is a recommended release, I suggest forgoing any further adjectives, and just call it apache-servicemix-4.x.0.  Make the JBI release the "special name" release ie.. apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi.   "Minimal" might suggest missing core features, and besides the JBI users know who they are ;-)

Re (2) Yes!  Yes!  Yes!  Offline and users behind corporate proxies have all sorts of issues if they can't connect.

Matt Pavlovich

On Jul 20, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:

> L.S.,
>
>
> Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own
> production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix
> where we could support our user base by providing new packaging
> options for Apache ServiceMix.
>
> 1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and
> perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes.  Many people don't have a use
> case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are
> looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly.  I think it
> would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal
> distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and
> leaves everything else there as optional features.  Given that we are
> recommending the use of Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF over JBI/NMR ourselves a
> lot, we should really have our distribution represent that
> recommendation.  Over time, we might even consider making this the
> default download and renaming the existing one to
> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi instead or something.
>
> 2). Another question we occasionally see on the mailing lists is from
> users that are running ServiceMix on machines that don't have internet
> access and that are having a hard time installing optional features.
> In order to cater for that need, we could add an
> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-full distribution that contains bundles for
> all the features we ship with, regardless of whether they're installed
> by default or not.  A quick test shows that it would become over 200
> MB in size, which might make the release process a bit heavy, but one
> other hand: there's definitely a user base for this kind of convenient
> all-in-one download as well.
>
> What do people think about adding these two packaging options?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
> ------------------------
> FuseSource
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

Gert Vanthienen
Administrator
L.S.,


Yeah, that sounds like a good plan:
- rename the existing kit to apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi
- add the camel/activemq/... only one as the default apache-servicemix-4.x.0
- add the full kit with everything in it for our offline/firewalled/... users

I'll raise JIRA issues for the first two and will link Geert's issue
for the full kit to that as well.  As always, if anyone fancies taking
a stab at any of these issues, feel free to go for it ;)


Regards,

Gert Vanthienen
------------------------
FuseSource
Web: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/



On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Matt Pavlovich <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> Re (1).. if there is a recommended release, I suggest forgoing any further adjectives, and just call it apache-servicemix-4.x.0.  Make the JBI release the "special name" release ie.. apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi.   "Minimal" might suggest missing core features, and besides the JBI users know who they are ;-)
>
> Re (2) Yes!  Yes!  Yes!  Offline and users behind corporate proxies have all sorts of issues if they can't connect.
>
> Matt Pavlovich
>
> On Jul 20, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
>
>> L.S.,
>>
>>
>> Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own
>> production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix
>> where we could support our user base by providing new packaging
>> options for Apache ServiceMix.
>>
>> 1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and
>> perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes.  Many people don't have a use
>> case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are
>> looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly.  I think it
>> would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal
>> distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and
>> leaves everything else there as optional features.  Given that we are
>> recommending the use of Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF over JBI/NMR ourselves a
>> lot, we should really have our distribution represent that
>> recommendation.  Over time, we might even consider making this the
>> default download and renaming the existing one to
>> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi instead or something.
>>
>> 2). Another question we occasionally see on the mailing lists is from
>> users that are running ServiceMix on machines that don't have internet
>> access and that are having a hard time installing optional features.
>> In order to cater for that need, we could add an
>> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-full distribution that contains bundles for
>> all the features we ship with, regardless of whether they're installed
>> by default or not.  A quick test shows that it would become over 200
>> MB in size, which might make the release process a bit heavy, but one
>> other hand: there's definitely a user base for this kind of convenient
>> all-in-one download as well.
>>
>> What do people think about adding these two packaging options?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gert Vanthienen
>> ------------------------
>> FuseSource
>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>
>
Regards,

Gert Vanthienen
------------------------
Open Source SOA: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

Gert Vanthienen
Administrator
In reply to this post by Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Jean-Baptiste,


For the -full assembly, I think it would make sense to take the basic
assembly and just add all bundles in the system repository instead of
starting with the -jbi assembly.  If we're recommending new users to
go for Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF instead of JBI, we should not install the
NMR/JBI features by default in this assembly either - if we just leave
them as optional features and have everything sitting in the system
repository already, enabling them would just be a few commands away if
people wanted to.


Regards,

Gert Vanthienen
------------------------
FuseSource
Web: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/



On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Gert,
>
> I'm agree that ServiceMix is premium pre-packaged container for
> ActiveMQ/Camel/CXF. I'm also agree with the usage of SMX without internet
> connection.
>
> Waiting for Karaf profiles (that should be included in Karaf 3.0.0), we can
> provide the following ServiceMix distribution:
>
> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0 which is Karaf + ActiveMQ + CXF + Camel,
> pre-packaged/pre-configured with a warranty of the integration of these
> projects. The nmr/jbi features will be available as optional.
> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0-nmr which is the previous distribution but nmr
> feature is installed by default, and as a bootFeatures. The jbi feature is
> still an optional one.
> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0-full is the previous distribution but the system
> repo contains all artifacts required to work offline.
>
> WDYT Gert ?
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 07/20/2011 05:16 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
>>
>> L.S.,
>>
>>
>> Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own
>> production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix
>> where we could support our user base by providing new packaging
>> options for Apache ServiceMix.
>>
>> 1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and
>> perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes.  Many people don't have a use
>> case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are
>> looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly.  I think it
>> would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal
>> distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and
>> leaves everything else there as optional features.  Given that we are
>> recommending the use of Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF over JBI/NMR ourselves a
>> lot, we should really have our distribution represent that
>> recommendation.  Over time, we might even consider making this the
>> default download and renaming the existing one to
>> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi instead or something.
>>
>> 2). Another question we occasionally see on the mailing lists is from
>> users that are running ServiceMix on machines that don't have internet
>> access and that are having a hard time installing optional features.
>> In order to cater for that need, we could add an
>> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-full distribution that contains bundles for
>> all the features we ship with, regardless of whether they're installed
>> by default or not.  A quick test shows that it would become over 200
>> MB in size, which might make the release process a bit heavy, but one
>> other hand: there's definitely a user base for this kind of convenient
>> all-in-one download as well.
>>
>> What do people think about adding these two packaging options?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gert Vanthienen
>> ------------------------
>> FuseSource
>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> [hidden email]
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
Regards,

Gert Vanthienen
------------------------
Open Source SOA: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Hi Gert,

As far as I understood, we agreed that SMX4 should keep the JBI
compatibility. JBI will be completely removed in SMX5.

I'm fully agree to set the JBI feature should be as optional. In that
case, we should send a clear and strong sign to the community. Why not
release SMX 4.5 for the new version (in place of 4.4.0) ?

My only concern is just to avoid to loose the users. I think that users
expect something close to 4.3.0 in 4.4.0.
If we announce SMX 4.5 with the new distribution, it would be more clear
for the users.

My 0.02€

Regards
JB

On 07/22/2011 02:26 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:

> Jean-Baptiste,
>
>
> For the -full assembly, I think it would make sense to take the basic
> assembly and just add all bundles in the system repository instead of
> starting with the -jbi assembly.  If we're recommending new users to
> go for Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF instead of JBI, we should not install the
> NMR/JBI features by default in this assembly either - if we just leave
> them as optional features and have everything sitting in the system
> repository already, enabling them would just be a few commands away if
> people wanted to.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
> ------------------------
> FuseSource
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> Hi Gert,
>>
>> I'm agree that ServiceMix is premium pre-packaged container for
>> ActiveMQ/Camel/CXF. I'm also agree with the usage of SMX without internet
>> connection.
>>
>> Waiting for Karaf profiles (that should be included in Karaf 3.0.0), we can
>> provide the following ServiceMix distribution:
>>
>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0 which is Karaf + ActiveMQ + CXF + Camel,
>> pre-packaged/pre-configured with a warranty of the integration of these
>> projects. The nmr/jbi features will be available as optional.
>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0-nmr which is the previous distribution but nmr
>> feature is installed by default, and as a bootFeatures. The jbi feature is
>> still an optional one.
>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0-full is the previous distribution but the system
>> repo contains all artifacts required to work offline.
>>
>> WDYT Gert ?
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On 07/20/2011 05:16 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
>>>
>>> L.S.,
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own
>>> production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix
>>> where we could support our user base by providing new packaging
>>> options for Apache ServiceMix.
>>>
>>> 1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and
>>> perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes.  Many people don't have a use
>>> case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are
>>> looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly.  I think it
>>> would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal
>>> distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and
>>> leaves everything else there as optional features.  Given that we are
>>> recommending the use of Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF over JBI/NMR ourselves a
>>> lot, we should really have our distribution represent that
>>> recommendation.  Over time, we might even consider making this the
>>> default download and renaming the existing one to
>>> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi instead or something.
>>>
>>> 2). Another question we occasionally see on the mailing lists is from
>>> users that are running ServiceMix on machines that don't have internet
>>> access and that are having a hard time installing optional features.
>>> In order to cater for that need, we could add an
>>> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-full distribution that contains bundles for
>>> all the features we ship with, regardless of whether they're installed
>>> by default or not.  A quick test shows that it would become over 200
>>> MB in size, which might make the release process a bit heavy, but one
>>> other hand: there's definitely a user base for this kind of convenient
>>> all-in-one download as well.
>>>
>>> What do people think about adding these two packaging options?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Gert Vanthienen
>>> ------------------------
>>> FuseSource
>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> [hidden email]
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>

--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[hidden email]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

Gert Vanthienen
Administrator
L.S.,


Well, if we make the default kit have the nmr/jbi as optional
features, then I think it would be better to do the same for the -full
kit.  The biggest change is actually in the default download there, so
I do agree we have to make to communicate things properly to our user
base so they know what to expect.

I'm not sure we have to skip a version to make that point clear though
- it would be the same message, regardless of whether we release the
next 4.x.0 as 4.4.0 or 4.5.0.  Personally, I think we'd better focus
on getting the message across properly instead of adding to the
confusion ourselves by skipping a version number.


Regards,

Gert Vanthienen
------------------------
FuseSource
Web: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/



On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Gert,
>
> As far as I understood, we agreed that SMX4 should keep the JBI
> compatibility. JBI will be completely removed in SMX5.
>
> I'm fully agree to set the JBI feature should be as optional. In that case,
> we should send a clear and strong sign to the community. Why not release SMX
> 4.5 for the new version (in place of 4.4.0) ?
>
> My only concern is just to avoid to loose the users. I think that users
> expect something close to 4.3.0 in 4.4.0.
> If we announce SMX 4.5 with the new distribution, it would be more clear for
> the users.
>
> My 0.02€
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 07/22/2011 02:26 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
>>
>> Jean-Baptiste,
>>
>>
>> For the -full assembly, I think it would make sense to take the basic
>> assembly and just add all bundles in the system repository instead of
>> starting with the -jbi assembly.  If we're recommending new users to
>> go for Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF instead of JBI, we should not install the
>> NMR/JBI features by default in this assembly either - if we just leave
>> them as optional features and have everything sitting in the system
>> repository already, enabling them would just be a few commands away if
>> people wanted to.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gert Vanthienen
>> ------------------------
>> FuseSource
>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré<[hidden email]>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Gert,
>>>
>>> I'm agree that ServiceMix is premium pre-packaged container for
>>> ActiveMQ/Camel/CXF. I'm also agree with the usage of SMX without internet
>>> connection.
>>>
>>> Waiting for Karaf profiles (that should be included in Karaf 3.0.0), we
>>> can
>>> provide the following ServiceMix distribution:
>>>
>>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0 which is Karaf + ActiveMQ + CXF + Camel,
>>> pre-packaged/pre-configured with a warranty of the integration of these
>>> projects. The nmr/jbi features will be available as optional.
>>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0-nmr which is the previous distribution but nmr
>>> feature is installed by default, and as a bootFeatures. The jbi feature
>>> is
>>> still an optional one.
>>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0-full is the previous distribution but the
>>> system
>>> repo contains all artifacts required to work offline.
>>>
>>> WDYT Gert ?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>> On 07/20/2011 05:16 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> L.S.,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own
>>>> production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix
>>>> where we could support our user base by providing new packaging
>>>> options for Apache ServiceMix.
>>>>
>>>> 1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and
>>>> perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes.  Many people don't have a use
>>>> case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are
>>>> looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly.  I think it
>>>> would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal
>>>> distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and
>>>> leaves everything else there as optional features.  Given that we are
>>>> recommending the use of Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF over JBI/NMR ourselves a
>>>> lot, we should really have our distribution represent that
>>>> recommendation.  Over time, we might even consider making this the
>>>> default download and renaming the existing one to
>>>> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi instead or something.
>>>>
>>>> 2). Another question we occasionally see on the mailing lists is from
>>>> users that are running ServiceMix on machines that don't have internet
>>>> access and that are having a hard time installing optional features.
>>>> In order to cater for that need, we could add an
>>>> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-full distribution that contains bundles for
>>>> all the features we ship with, regardless of whether they're installed
>>>> by default or not.  A quick test shows that it would become over 200
>>>> MB in size, which might make the release process a bit heavy, but one
>>>> other hand: there's definitely a user base for this kind of convenient
>>>> all-in-one download as well.
>>>>
>>>> What do people think about adding these two packaging options?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Gert Vanthienen
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> FuseSource
>>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>>> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> [hidden email]
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
Regards,

Gert Vanthienen
------------------------
Open Source SOA: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
It sounds good. We have to be careful with the communication :)

Regards
JB

On 07/22/2011 02:51 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:

> L.S.,
>
>
> Well, if we make the default kit have the nmr/jbi as optional
> features, then I think it would be better to do the same for the -full
> kit.  The biggest change is actually in the default download there, so
> I do agree we have to make to communicate things properly to our user
> base so they know what to expect.
>
> I'm not sure we have to skip a version to make that point clear though
> - it would be the same message, regardless of whether we release the
> next 4.x.0 as 4.4.0 or 4.5.0.  Personally, I think we'd better focus
> on getting the message across properly instead of adding to the
> confusion ourselves by skipping a version number.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
> ------------------------
> FuseSource
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> Hi Gert,
>>
>> As far as I understood, we agreed that SMX4 should keep the JBI
>> compatibility. JBI will be completely removed in SMX5.
>>
>> I'm fully agree to set the JBI feature should be as optional. In that case,
>> we should send a clear and strong sign to the community. Why not release SMX
>> 4.5 for the new version (in place of 4.4.0) ?
>>
>> My only concern is just to avoid to loose the users. I think that users
>> expect something close to 4.3.0 in 4.4.0.
>> If we announce SMX 4.5 with the new distribution, it would be more clear for
>> the users.
>>
>> My 0.02€
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On 07/22/2011 02:26 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
>>>
>>> Jean-Baptiste,
>>>
>>>
>>> For the -full assembly, I think it would make sense to take the basic
>>> assembly and just add all bundles in the system repository instead of
>>> starting with the -jbi assembly.  If we're recommending new users to
>>> go for Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF instead of JBI, we should not install the
>>> NMR/JBI features by default in this assembly either - if we just leave
>>> them as optional features and have everything sitting in the system
>>> repository already, enabling them would just be a few commands away if
>>> people wanted to.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Gert Vanthienen
>>> ------------------------
>>> FuseSource
>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré<[hidden email]>
>>>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Gert,
>>>>
>>>> I'm agree that ServiceMix is premium pre-packaged container for
>>>> ActiveMQ/Camel/CXF. I'm also agree with the usage of SMX without internet
>>>> connection.
>>>>
>>>> Waiting for Karaf profiles (that should be included in Karaf 3.0.0), we
>>>> can
>>>> provide the following ServiceMix distribution:
>>>>
>>>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0 which is Karaf + ActiveMQ + CXF + Camel,
>>>> pre-packaged/pre-configured with a warranty of the integration of these
>>>> projects. The nmr/jbi features will be available as optional.
>>>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0-nmr which is the previous distribution but nmr
>>>> feature is installed by default, and as a bootFeatures. The jbi feature
>>>> is
>>>> still an optional one.
>>>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0-full is the previous distribution but the
>>>> system
>>>> repo contains all artifacts required to work offline.
>>>>
>>>> WDYT Gert ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>>
>>>> On 07/20/2011 05:16 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> L.S.,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own
>>>>> production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix
>>>>> where we could support our user base by providing new packaging
>>>>> options for Apache ServiceMix.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and
>>>>> perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes.  Many people don't have a use
>>>>> case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are
>>>>> looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly.  I think it
>>>>> would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal
>>>>> distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and
>>>>> leaves everything else there as optional features.  Given that we are
>>>>> recommending the use of Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF over JBI/NMR ourselves a
>>>>> lot, we should really have our distribution represent that
>>>>> recommendation.  Over time, we might even consider making this the
>>>>> default download and renaming the existing one to
>>>>> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi instead or something.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2). Another question we occasionally see on the mailing lists is from
>>>>> users that are running ServiceMix on machines that don't have internet
>>>>> access and that are having a hard time installing optional features.
>>>>> In order to cater for that need, we could add an
>>>>> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-full distribution that contains bundles for
>>>>> all the features we ship with, regardless of whether they're installed
>>>>> by default or not.  A quick test shows that it would become over 200
>>>>> MB in size, which might make the release process a bit heavy, but one
>>>>> other hand: there's definitely a user base for this kind of convenient
>>>>> all-in-one download as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do people think about adding these two packaging options?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Gert Vanthienen
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> FuseSource
>>>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>>>> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> [hidden email]
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>

--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[hidden email]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

Matt Pavlovich
In reply to this post by Jean-Baptiste Onofré
+1 on JB's 4.5 idea.  Technically its a minimal change, but JBI users will have to change all their deployment configs to explicitly include the JBI features.

On Jul 22, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:

> Hi Gert,
>
> As far as I understood, we agreed that SMX4 should keep the JBI compatibility. JBI will be completely removed in SMX5.
>
> I'm fully agree to set the JBI feature should be as optional. In that case, we should send a clear and strong sign to the community. Why not release SMX 4.5 for the new version (in place of 4.4.0) ?
>
> My only concern is just to avoid to loose the users. I think that users expect something close to 4.3.0 in 4.4.0.
> If we announce SMX 4.5 with the new distribution, it would be more clear for the users.
>
> My 0.02€
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 07/22/2011 02:26 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
>> Jean-Baptiste,
>>
>>
>> For the -full assembly, I think it would make sense to take the basic
>> assembly and just add all bundles in the system repository instead of
>> starting with the -jbi assembly.  If we're recommending new users to
>> go for Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF instead of JBI, we should not install the
>> NMR/JBI features by default in this assembly either - if we just leave
>> them as optional features and have everything sitting in the system
>> repository already, enabling them would just be a few commands away if
>> people wanted to.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gert Vanthienen
>> ------------------------
>> FuseSource
>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>> Hi Gert,
>>>
>>> I'm agree that ServiceMix is premium pre-packaged container for
>>> ActiveMQ/Camel/CXF. I'm also agree with the usage of SMX without internet
>>> connection.
>>>
>>> Waiting for Karaf profiles (that should be included in Karaf 3.0.0), we can
>>> provide the following ServiceMix distribution:
>>>
>>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0 which is Karaf + ActiveMQ + CXF + Camel,
>>> pre-packaged/pre-configured with a warranty of the integration of these
>>> projects. The nmr/jbi features will be available as optional.
>>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0-nmr which is the previous distribution but nmr
>>> feature is installed by default, and as a bootFeatures. The jbi feature is
>>> still an optional one.
>>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0-full is the previous distribution but the system
>>> repo contains all artifacts required to work offline.
>>>
>>> WDYT Gert ?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>> On 07/20/2011 05:16 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> L.S.,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own
>>>> production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix
>>>> where we could support our user base by providing new packaging
>>>> options for Apache ServiceMix.
>>>>
>>>> 1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and
>>>> perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes.  Many people don't have a use
>>>> case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are
>>>> looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly.  I think it
>>>> would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal
>>>> distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and
>>>> leaves everything else there as optional features.  Given that we are
>>>> recommending the use of Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF over JBI/NMR ourselves a
>>>> lot, we should really have our distribution represent that
>>>> recommendation.  Over time, we might even consider making this the
>>>> default download and renaming the existing one to
>>>> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi instead or something.
>>>>
>>>> 2). Another question we occasionally see on the mailing lists is from
>>>> users that are running ServiceMix on machines that don't have internet
>>>> access and that are having a hard time installing optional features.
>>>> In order to cater for that need, we could add an
>>>> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-full distribution that contains bundles for
>>>> all the features we ship with, regardless of whether they're installed
>>>> by default or not.  A quick test shows that it would become over 200
>>>> MB in size, which might make the release process a bit heavy, but one
>>>> other hand: there's definitely a user base for this kind of convenient
>>>> all-in-one download as well.
>>>>
>>>> What do people think about adding these two packaging options?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Gert Vanthienen
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> FuseSource
>>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>>> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> [hidden email]
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
In reply to this post by Gert Vanthienen
Hi Gert,

what about the ServiceMix Components ?

I think it's "normal" to include the components in the
apache-servicemix-4.x-jbi packaging, but if we remove jbi/nmr from
apache-servicemix-4.x, we have to remove the components also.

To summarize:
- apache-servicemix-4.x will include Karaf+ActiveMQ+CXF+Camel
- apache-servicemix-4.x-jbi will include
Karaf+ActiveMQ+CXF+Camel+NMR+JBI+Components+(ODE)

Is it ok for you ?

Regards
JB

On 07/22/2011 02:51 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:

> L.S.,
>
>
> Well, if we make the default kit have the nmr/jbi as optional
> features, then I think it would be better to do the same for the -full
> kit.  The biggest change is actually in the default download there, so
> I do agree we have to make to communicate things properly to our user
> base so they know what to expect.
>
> I'm not sure we have to skip a version to make that point clear though
> - it would be the same message, regardless of whether we release the
> next 4.x.0 as 4.4.0 or 4.5.0.  Personally, I think we'd better focus
> on getting the message across properly instead of adding to the
> confusion ourselves by skipping a version number.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
> ------------------------
> FuseSource
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> Hi Gert,
>>
>> As far as I understood, we agreed that SMX4 should keep the JBI
>> compatibility. JBI will be completely removed in SMX5.
>>
>> I'm fully agree to set the JBI feature should be as optional. In that case,
>> we should send a clear and strong sign to the community. Why not release SMX
>> 4.5 for the new version (in place of 4.4.0) ?
>>
>> My only concern is just to avoid to loose the users. I think that users
>> expect something close to 4.3.0 in 4.4.0.
>> If we announce SMX 4.5 with the new distribution, it would be more clear for
>> the users.
>>
>> My 0.02€
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On 07/22/2011 02:26 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
>>>
>>> Jean-Baptiste,
>>>
>>>
>>> For the -full assembly, I think it would make sense to take the basic
>>> assembly and just add all bundles in the system repository instead of
>>> starting with the -jbi assembly.  If we're recommending new users to
>>> go for Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF instead of JBI, we should not install the
>>> NMR/JBI features by default in this assembly either - if we just leave
>>> them as optional features and have everything sitting in the system
>>> repository already, enabling them would just be a few commands away if
>>> people wanted to.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Gert Vanthienen
>>> ------------------------
>>> FuseSource
>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré<[hidden email]>
>>>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Gert,
>>>>
>>>> I'm agree that ServiceMix is premium pre-packaged container for
>>>> ActiveMQ/Camel/CXF. I'm also agree with the usage of SMX without internet
>>>> connection.
>>>>
>>>> Waiting for Karaf profiles (that should be included in Karaf 3.0.0), we
>>>> can
>>>> provide the following ServiceMix distribution:
>>>>
>>>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0 which is Karaf + ActiveMQ + CXF + Camel,
>>>> pre-packaged/pre-configured with a warranty of the integration of these
>>>> projects. The nmr/jbi features will be available as optional.
>>>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0-nmr which is the previous distribution but nmr
>>>> feature is installed by default, and as a bootFeatures. The jbi feature
>>>> is
>>>> still an optional one.
>>>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0-full is the previous distribution but the
>>>> system
>>>> repo contains all artifacts required to work offline.
>>>>
>>>> WDYT Gert ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> JB
>>>>
>>>> On 07/20/2011 05:16 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> L.S.,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own
>>>>> production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix
>>>>> where we could support our user base by providing new packaging
>>>>> options for Apache ServiceMix.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and
>>>>> perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes.  Many people don't have a use
>>>>> case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are
>>>>> looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly.  I think it
>>>>> would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal
>>>>> distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and
>>>>> leaves everything else there as optional features.  Given that we are
>>>>> recommending the use of Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF over JBI/NMR ourselves a
>>>>> lot, we should really have our distribution represent that
>>>>> recommendation.  Over time, we might even consider making this the
>>>>> default download and renaming the existing one to
>>>>> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi instead or something.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2). Another question we occasionally see on the mailing lists is from
>>>>> users that are running ServiceMix on machines that don't have internet
>>>>> access and that are having a hard time installing optional features.
>>>>> In order to cater for that need, we could add an
>>>>> apache-servicemix-4.x.0-full distribution that contains bundles for
>>>>> all the features we ship with, regardless of whether they're installed
>>>>> by default or not.  A quick test shows that it would become over 200
>>>>> MB in size, which might make the release process a bit heavy, but one
>>>>> other hand: there's definitely a user base for this kind of convenient
>>>>> all-in-one download as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do people think about adding these two packaging options?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Gert Vanthienen
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> FuseSource
>>>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>>>> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> [hidden email]
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net
>> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>>

--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
[hidden email]
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PROPOSAL] New packaging options for ServiceMix 4.x

Guillaume Nodet
Administrator
That would be my understanding.

On Saturday, July 23, 2011, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Gert,
>
> what about the ServiceMix Components ?
>
> I think it's "normal" to include the components in the apache-servicemix-4.x-jbi packaging, but if we remove jbi/nmr from apache-servicemix-4.x, we have to remove the components also.
>
> To summarize:
> - apache-servicemix-4.x will include Karaf+ActiveMQ+CXF+Camel
> - apache-servicemix-4.x-jbi will include Karaf+ActiveMQ+CXF+Camel+NMR+JBI+Components+(ODE)
>
> Is it ok for you ?
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 07/22/2011 02:51 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
>
> L.S.,
>
>
> Well, if we make the default kit have the nmr/jbi as optional
> features, then I think it would be better to do the same for the -full
> kit.  The biggest change is actually in the default download there, so
> I do agree we have to make to communicate things properly to our user
> base so they know what to expect.
>
> I'm not sure we have to skip a version to make that point clear though
> - it would be the same message, regardless of whether we release the
> next 4.x.0 as 4.4.0 or 4.5.0.  Personally, I think we'd better focus
> on getting the message across properly instead of adding to the
> confusion ourselves by skipping a version number.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
> ------------------------
> FuseSource
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
> Hi Gert,
>
> As far as I understood, we agreed that SMX4 should keep the JBI
> compatibility. JBI will be completely removed in SMX5.
>
> I'm fully agree to set the JBI feature should be as optional. In that case,
> we should send a clear and strong sign to the community. Why not release SMX
> 4.5 for the new version (in place of 4.4.0) ?
>
> My only concern is just to avoid to loose the users. I think that users
> expect something close to 4.3.0 in 4.4.0.
> If we announce SMX 4.5 with the new distribution, it would be more clear for
> the users.
>
> My 0.02€
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 07/22/2011 02:26 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
>
>
> Jean-Baptiste,
>
>
> For the -full assembly, I think it would make sense to take the basic
> assembly and just add all bundles in the system repository instead of
> starting with the -jbi assembly.  If we're recommending new users to
> go for Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF instead of JBI, we should not install the
> NMR/JBI features by default in this assembly either - if we just leave
> them as optional features and have everything sitting in the system
> repository already, enabling them would just be a few commands away if
> people wanted to.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
> ------------------------
> FuseSource
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré<[hidden email]>
>   wrote:
>
>
> Hi Gert,
>
> I'm agree that ServiceMix is premium pre-packaged container for
> ActiveMQ/Camel/CXF. I'm also agree with the usage of SMX without internet
> connection.
>
> Waiting for Karaf profiles (that should be included in Karaf 3.0.0), we
> can
> provide the following ServiceMix distribution:
>
> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0 which is Karaf + ActiveMQ + CXF + Camel,
> pre-packaged/pre-configured with a warranty of the integration of these
> projects. The nmr/jbi features will be available as optional.
> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0-nmr which is the previous distribution but nmr
> feature is installed by default, and as a bootFeatures. The jbi feature
> is
> still an optional one.
> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0-full is the previous distribution but the
> system
> repo contains all artifacts required to work offline.
>
> WDYT Gert ?
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 07/20/2011 05:16 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote:
>
>
> L.S.,
>
>
> Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own
> production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix
> where we could support our user base by providing new packaging
> options for Apache ServiceMix.
>
> 1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and
> perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes.  Many people don't have a use
> case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are
> looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly.  I think it
> would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal
> distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and
> leaves everything else there as optional features.
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> [hidden email]
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>

--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com