Servicemix 5 and cellar or Jboss Fuse and Fabric

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

Servicemix 5 and cellar or Jboss Fuse and Fabric

maggie
I know similar questions have been asked before but either questions did not cover my concerns or the responses were not clear enough. Let me know if this should be posted in some other forum. I did not post in Red Hat forum intentionally though. Here is the question:

I am in process of upgrading to latest SM. We earlier went with the Fusesource version of SM as we liked the support behind it even though we never required it. Now with RH in the picture, upgrade is not that straightforward. We now have to choose between Fabric 8 vs SM 5 vs Jboss Fuse.

Our requirement is: Distributed KARAF containers which can talk Camel, Spring DM, CXF and have support for ActiveMQ.

* SM fits the bill perfectly but then I am unable to add fabric to the latest SM version (5.1.0.). I am not sure If I am missing anything by not being able to add Fabric
* Fabric 8 to me seems overkill as we are not planning to provision using Hawtio. We are also not planning to deploy other than KARAF. Cloud support is a future thing for at this point for us. We want to base our application on OSGI+Spring support. Additionally vanilla Fabric 8 does not work; you have to configure Fabric to behave like SM (Camel+ActiveMQ+CXF). On top of everything the production release of Fabric 8 is not out yet
* Jboss Fuse comes with subscription fee. It is very similar to deploying on SM. I am not sure whether Fabric features give us any more value than what cellar can give on SM given that we are not planning to use Hawtio

To me looks like sticking to SM + Cellar is way forward. Also I read some blogs from guys who worked on SM earlier saying that SM is dead. I find completely opposite. I find quite a few recent releases of SM. I have sense that some people are intentionally trying to kill SM brand but I am not sure.

Look forward to what others have to say about it.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Servicemix 5 and cellar or Jboss Fuse and Fabric

Raúl Kripalani
Well, saying that SMX is dead is absurd.

SMX is a brand, more than a project with code ownership. It combines the
Camel + CXF + ActiveMQ components running on top of Karaf, so that folks
can download the stack and install it easily in one go.

Saying that SMX is dead is equivalent to saying that the upstream projects
are dead, which is very very far away from the truth.

A different thing would have been to state that SMX hadn't seen a refresh /
release in some while. That could've been true back then, but is
fortunately no longer the case – as you pointed out already both community
and release activity have risen considerably.

I'll stay away from conjecturing about the true intentions behind such
"shattered glass" and "sensationalist" blog posts. Open Source is all about
openness and honesty, and certain types of attitudes benefit nobody. For
example, throwing FUD at peer Open Source projects is hardly exemplary.

Regards,

*Raúl Kripalani*
Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source
Integration specialist
http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:55 PM, maggie <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I know similar questions have been asked before but either questions did
> not
> cover my concerns or the responses were not clear enough. Let me know if
> this should be posted in some other forum. I did not post in Red Hat forum
> intentionally though. Here is the question:
>
> I am in process of upgrading to latest SM. We earlier went with the
> Fusesource version of SM as we liked the support behind it even though we
> never required it. Now with RH in the picture, upgrade is not that
> straightforward. We now have to choose between Fabric 8 vs SM 5 vs Jboss
> Fuse.
>
> Our requirement is: Distributed KARAF containers which can talk Camel,
> Spring DM, CXF and have support for ActiveMQ.
>
> * SM fits the bill perfectly but then I am unable to add fabric to the
> latest SM version (5.1.0.). I am not sure If I am missing anything by not
> being able to add Fabric
> * Fabric 8 to me seems overkill as we are not planning to provision using
> Hawtio. We are also not planning to deploy other than KARAF. Cloud support
> is a future thing for at this point for us. We want to base our application
> on OSGI+Spring support. Additionally vanilla Fabric 8 does not work; you
> have to configure Fabric to behave like SM (Camel+ActiveMQ+CXF). On top of
> everything the production release of Fabric 8 is not out yet
> * Jboss Fuse comes with subscription fee. It is very similar to deploying
> on
> SM. I am not sure whether Fabric features give us any more value than what
> cellar can give on SM given that we are not planning to use Hawtio
>
> To me looks like sticking to SM + Cellar is way forward. Also I read some
> blogs from guys who worked on SM earlier saying that SM is dead. I find
> completely opposite. I find quite a few recent releases of SM. I have sense
> that some people are intentionally trying to kill SM brand but I am not
> sure.
>
> Look forward to what others have to say about it.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://servicemix.396122.n5.nabble.com/Servicemix-5-and-cellar-or-Jboss-Fuse-and-Fabric-tp5721456.html
> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Servicemix 5 and cellar or Jboss Fuse and Fabric

ksobkowiak
Hi

FuseSource SMX was very similar to SMX because it growth from SMX. Then
the development wend straight forward, we had Fuse Fabric, and now it
evaluated into fabric8, which is very powerful tool/server to build
complicated systems. But Fabric8 is rather another standalone Karaf
distribution and I wouldn't try to install it into SMX. The old Fuse
Fabric was good but you should take new tools and I wouldn't use it too.
You can use Fabric8 if you wish, this is one option.

SMX is another custom Karaf distribution which combines other components
like Camel, CXF, ActiveMQ (as described by Raul) and adds some support
for Rules and BPM. It has very few own glue code and the intention is to
keep it as simple as possible. Because this is a Karaf with installed
additional components, each Karaf extension should work with SMX too. I
don't know Cellar good, I'm going to learn it soon.  I think you should
use SMX and Cellar if you don't want to use Fabric8.  If you don't need
any special Fabric8 features this solution should be so good like
Fabric8.  

Jean-Baptiste has written lately very good book about Cellar (Learning
Karaf Cellar, Packt Publishing). I can see there a chapter about Camel
too. So I think, everything you need to integrate SMX with Cellar is
there. JB is an active member of Karaf and SMX communities and you get a
support from him and other members if you have troubles with SMX and
Cellar. I think, he can give you more info when he is back from vacation.

You can also take a look at the Cellar documentation
http://karaf.apache.org/manual/cellar/latest/user-guide/index.html

Best regards
Krzysztof

On 30.07.2014 17:50, Raul Kripalani wrote:

> Well, saying that SMX is dead is absurd.
>
> SMX is a brand, more than a project with code ownership. It combines the
> Camel + CXF + ActiveMQ components running on top of Karaf, so that folks
> can download the stack and install it easily in one go.
>
> Saying that SMX is dead is equivalent to saying that the upstream projects
> are dead, which is very very far away from the truth.
>
> A different thing would have been to state that SMX hadn't seen a refresh /
> release in some while. That could've been true back then, but is
> fortunately no longer the case – as you pointed out already both community
> and release activity have risen considerably.
>
> I'll stay away from conjecturing about the true intentions behind such
> "shattered glass" and "sensationalist" blog posts. Open Source is all about
> openness and honesty, and certain types of attitudes benefit nobody. For
> example, throwing FUD at peer Open Source projects is hardly exemplary.
>
> Regards,
>
> *Raúl Kripalani*
> Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source
> Integration specialist
> http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani
> http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk
>
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:55 PM, maggie <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I know similar questions have been asked before but either questions did
>> not
>> cover my concerns or the responses were not clear enough. Let me know if
>> this should be posted in some other forum. I did not post in Red Hat forum
>> intentionally though. Here is the question:
>>
>> I am in process of upgrading to latest SM. We earlier went with the
>> Fusesource version of SM as we liked the support behind it even though we
>> never required it. Now with RH in the picture, upgrade is not that
>> straightforward. We now have to choose between Fabric 8 vs SM 5 vs Jboss
>> Fuse.
>>
>> Our requirement is: Distributed KARAF containers which can talk Camel,
>> Spring DM, CXF and have support for ActiveMQ.
>>
>> * SM fits the bill perfectly but then I am unable to add fabric to the
>> latest SM version (5.1.0.). I am not sure If I am missing anything by not
>> being able to add Fabric
>> * Fabric 8 to me seems overkill as we are not planning to provision using
>> Hawtio. We are also not planning to deploy other than KARAF. Cloud support
>> is a future thing for at this point for us. We want to base our application
>> on OSGI+Spring support. Additionally vanilla Fabric 8 does not work; you
>> have to configure Fabric to behave like SM (Camel+ActiveMQ+CXF). On top of
>> everything the production release of Fabric 8 is not out yet
>> * Jboss Fuse comes with subscription fee. It is very similar to deploying
>> on
>> SM. I am not sure whether Fabric features give us any more value than what
>> cellar can give on SM given that we are not planning to use Hawtio
>>
>> To me looks like sticking to SM + Cellar is way forward. Also I read some
>> blogs from guys who worked on SM earlier saying that SM is dead. I find
>> completely opposite. I find quite a few recent releases of SM. I have sense
>> that some people are intentionally trying to kill SM brand but I am not
>> sure.
>>
>> Look forward to what others have to say about it.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://servicemix.396122.n5.nabble.com/Servicemix-5-and-cellar-or-Jboss-Fuse-and-Fabric-tp5721456.html
>> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>


--
Krzysztof Sobkowiak

JEE & OSS Architect | Senior Solution Architect @ Capgemini | Committer
@ ASF
Capgemini <http://www.pl.capgemini.com/> | Software Solutions Center
<http://www.pl.capgemini-sdm.com/> | Wroclaw
e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> |
Twitter: @KSobkowiak
Calendar: http://goo.gl/yvsebC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Servicemix 5 and cellar or Jboss Fuse and Fabric

maggie
In reply to this post by maggie
Thanks Raul and Krzysztof for making things clear.

Krzysztof:

I will go through the documentation you have provided and as suggested will also try to reach JB to understand cellar little better.

Regards
Vaibhav