To servicemix or not to servicemix

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
49 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Actually, if you take a look in the Camel features descriptor, Camel
references the CXF feature (with version range):

<features name='camel-${project.version}'>
        <repository>mvn:org.apache.cxf.karaf/apache-cxf/${cxf-version}/xml/features</repository>

So, Camel already defines the expected CXF version.

The missing part (resolved in ServiceMix) is ActiveMQ (actually, for
ActiveMQ it's the opposite: ActiveMQ features descriptor references
Camel features).

Regards
JB

On 02/09/2014 12:27 AM, Mike K wrote:

> Hi,
>
> How would you resolve dependency versions for main components like Camel
> and CXF and AMQ that those are aligned?
> Is there any easy way to pick up at will Camel version and CXF version
> without thinking of what those use inside?
>
> tnx
>
> Michael.
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 3:12 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix
>
> Yes, it could like this. We can pre-load some features repositories in
> Karaf distribution (using a config file for instance, extending
> etc/org.apache.karaf.features.repos.cfg).
>
> Or, it's where Cave could be interesting: Karaf can connect to Cave
> repository providing the features.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 02/09/2014 12:09 AM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak wrote:
>> Do you mean, the user should first add the enterprise feature repository
>> using repo-add command to use the enterprise features (like currently
>> camel, dosgi, wicket,...)?
>>
>> On 08.02.2014 23:58, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Yes, it's what I proposed some time ago: extract the non-core features
>>> from Karaf itself (and not ship them with the distributions), and
>>> provide it as a dedicated sub-project.
>>>
>>> I will move forward on this with a formal proposal and branch on github.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>
>

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

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

Gert Vanthienen
Administrator
In reply to this post by Cristiano Costantini
L.S.,


First of all, thank you for starting this discussion!  I definitely
agree with everything that has already been said on this thread. We
have been ignoring the important, key question for far too long on our
mailing lists: Is there a community of users that are interested in
having an Apache project that is solely about combining ActiveMQ,
Camel, CXF, Karaf and a few other things into a single integration
platform distribution?  That is the real question we have to answer
here.

I started updating ServiceMix 4.x to the latest version a while ago,
but given the large legacy codebase and the number of subprojects that
we have, that is quite an undertaking.  Apart from the JBI itests
issue, we would also have to get the Features project upgrade done and
then do all the release.  This is why we restarted the ServiceMix 5
effort a year ago: to have a single project with just the dependency
versions to update and then cut a release would be a really great
thing, compared to the amount of work we now have to do.

It looks like nobody out here is interested in doing all that work on
the 4.x line and from what I read, the jury is still out on what
should happen with the ServiceMix 5 effort.  There probably is some
value in this type of distribution to get people started with the
entire stack of projects more easily, without having to resort to
vendor-specific solutions like JBoss Fuse, Fabric8, Talend ESB, ...
from day one.

We really need some people to do the work though.  If nobody is
able/willing to put in the effort, it might be better to look into
finishing up the project with a bit of style instead of letting it
slowly die in the background.  With a nice announcement, pointing to
the appropriate documentation on the Camel, CXF, Karaf, ... websites,
we can definitely get the few people that end up on the ServiceMix
project website oriented pretty quickly towards a DIY solution
starting with a plain Karaf installation.

Personally, I'm fine with either solution.  I have always personally
liked the Apache ServiceMix project, so if there's some interest to
keep doing this, I'll gladly help out there.  But on the other hand:
it's pretty hard to build a community around only a single assembly
project, so if there's no real interest, I'll gladly work with
everyone else to draft up a nice announcement and point people towards
a better solution as well.

Not sure what the best way is to decide this.  Perhaps start a vote on
what to do next?  Given the meaning assigned to the different vote
options on https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html, that might
give us a good idea about who is actually willing/able to help out,
but I'm open to any suggestions here.


Regards and thanks again for getting this discussion in the open,

Gert Vanthienen


Regards,

Gert Vanthienen


On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Cristiano Costantini
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> as I'm waiting for Servicemix 4.6.0 to come out because it solves some
> problems with the version of some bundles, I was wondering if I should move
> to Karaf (2.3.3) instead on using Servicemix as the basis for my
> application.
>
> In fact I use Spring, Pax Web, Camel and CXF, and I'll probably need
> ActiveMQ if I need to implement some specific EIP. I need many dependencies
> from the servicemix bundles of wrapped dependencies, but I don't other
> ServiceMix features, especially NMR that I understand from SMX4NMR-319 is
> blocking release of 4.6.0.
>
> What you suggest me to do?
>
> Thank you!
> Cristiano
Regards,

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

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

Cristiano Costantini
Thank you a lot for the intervention Gert, I care this topic.

My (non-binding) opinion is that I am "interested in having an Apache
project that is solely about combining ActiveMQ, Camel, CXF, Karaf and a
few other things into a single integration platform distribution" and I add
that it should be still named "ServiceMix" that, as I said, has a sort of
marketing and seo indexing value as a landing point for people searching
for a credible integration platform.


If that will be the direction (very simple aggregation of ActiveMQ, Camel,
CXF, Karaf without JBI and NMR), I can try to do something to contribute.
I cannot fully commit yet because I don't know if I'm able to achieve the
expected level of availability and quality, but I'm optimistic on
availability because at the moment we use ServiceMix at work and I would
probably be able to combine some efforts, while I can try to join other
contributors and figure out what is needed to do while they do it.

Of course, if there is someone more competent than me that is willing to
do, I'll be happy even more and I may focus on other topic (like promoting
karaf as a platform for web application - I'm kind of studying Karaf as the
basis for GWT, Spring Security and Spring MVC web applications)

Regards,
Cristiano




2014-02-10 14:16 GMT+01:00 Gert Vanthienen <[hidden email]>:

> L.S.,
>
>
> First of all, thank you for starting this discussion!  I definitely
> agree with everything that has already been said on this thread. We
> have been ignoring the important, key question for far too long on our
> mailing lists: Is there a community of users that are interested in
> having an Apache project that is solely about combining ActiveMQ,
> Camel, CXF, Karaf and a few other things into a single integration
> platform distribution?  That is the real question we have to answer
> here.
>
> I started updating ServiceMix 4.x to the latest version a while ago,
> but given the large legacy codebase and the number of subprojects that
> we have, that is quite an undertaking.  Apart from the JBI itests
> issue, we would also have to get the Features project upgrade done and
> then do all the release.  This is why we restarted the ServiceMix 5
> effort a year ago: to have a single project with just the dependency
> versions to update and then cut a release would be a really great
> thing, compared to the amount of work we now have to do.
>
> It looks like nobody out here is interested in doing all that work on
> the 4.x line and from what I read, the jury is still out on what
> should happen with the ServiceMix 5 effort.  There probably is some
> value in this type of distribution to get people started with the
> entire stack of projects more easily, without having to resort to
> vendor-specific solutions like JBoss Fuse, Fabric8, Talend ESB, ...
> from day one.
>
> We really need some people to do the work though.  If nobody is
> able/willing to put in the effort, it might be better to look into
> finishing up the project with a bit of style instead of letting it
> slowly die in the background.  With a nice announcement, pointing to
> the appropriate documentation on the Camel, CXF, Karaf, ... websites,
> we can definitely get the few people that end up on the ServiceMix
> project website oriented pretty quickly towards a DIY solution
> starting with a plain Karaf installation.
>
> Personally, I'm fine with either solution.  I have always personally
> liked the Apache ServiceMix project, so if there's some interest to
> keep doing this, I'll gladly help out there.  But on the other hand:
> it's pretty hard to build a community around only a single assembly
> project, so if there's no real interest, I'll gladly work with
> everyone else to draft up a nice announcement and point people towards
> a better solution as well.
>
> Not sure what the best way is to decide this.  Perhaps start a vote on
> what to do next?  Given the meaning assigned to the different vote
> options on https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html, that might
> give us a good idea about who is actually willing/able to help out,
> but I'm open to any suggestions here.
>
>
> Regards and thanks again for getting this discussion in the open,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Cristiano Costantini
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > as I'm waiting for Servicemix 4.6.0 to come out because it solves some
> > problems with the version of some bundles, I was wondering if I should
> move
> > to Karaf (2.3.3) instead on using Servicemix as the basis for my
> > application.
> >
> > In fact I use Spring, Pax Web, Camel and CXF, and I'll probably need
> > ActiveMQ if I need to implement some specific EIP. I need many
> dependencies
> > from the servicemix bundles of wrapped dependencies, but I don't other
> > ServiceMix features, especially NMR that I understand from SMX4NMR-319 is
> > blocking release of 4.6.0.
> >
> > What you suggest me to do?
> >
> > Thank you!
> > Cristiano
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

Filippo Balicchia
First of all thanks for this discussion,

from my point of view, servicemix should continue
living for reality who needs a minimalist distro in which is possible found
some of the leading actors
like ActiveMQ, CXF and Camel in a single solution.

Ok, if one wants can do it alone ! but found it out of the box in IHMO and
very comfortable.

In servicemix 5 is possible find modules that can used to create solutions
of a certain dignity then
why throw them away ?

As for version 4 by looking at the commits I see that there is still effort.
for the maintenance, so if from users point of view there is no interest
why they keep it?

Probably time spent from core developer to keep it could be used to smx5
whose intent was to
to cut a release more quickly then now.

From the other point view, if a structure search a esb solution That truly
had value-add.
should necessarily use the products listed in this thread.

This is IMHO

for me is +1 for maintain servicemix brand and servicemix5

Regards

--Filippo




2014-02-10 15:42 GMT+01:00 Cristiano Costantini <
[hidden email]>:

> Thank you a lot for the intervention Gert, I care this topic.
>
> My (non-binding) opinion is that I am "interested in having an Apache
> project that is solely about combining ActiveMQ, Camel, CXF, Karaf and a
> few other things into a single integration platform distribution" and I add
> that it should be still named "ServiceMix" that, as I said, has a sort of
> marketing and seo indexing value as a landing point for people searching
> for a credible integration platform.
>
>
> If that will be the direction (very simple aggregation of ActiveMQ, Camel,
> CXF, Karaf without JBI and NMR), I can try to do something to contribute.
> I cannot fully commit yet because I don't know if I'm able to achieve the
> expected level of availability and quality, but I'm optimistic on
> availability because at the moment we use ServiceMix at work and I would
> probably be able to combine some efforts, while I can try to join other
> contributors and figure out what is needed to do while they do it.
>
> Of course, if there is someone more competent than me that is willing to
> do, I'll be happy even more and I may focus on other topic (like promoting
> karaf as a platform for web application - I'm kind of studying Karaf as the
> basis for GWT, Spring Security and Spring MVC web applications)
>
> Regards,
> Cristiano
>
>
>
>
> 2014-02-10 14:16 GMT+01:00 Gert Vanthienen <[hidden email]>:
>
> > L.S.,
> >
> >
> > First of all, thank you for starting this discussion!  I definitely
> > agree with everything that has already been said on this thread. We
> > have been ignoring the important, key question for far too long on our
> > mailing lists: Is there a community of users that are interested in
> > having an Apache project that is solely about combining ActiveMQ,
> > Camel, CXF, Karaf and a few other things into a single integration
> > platform distribution?  That is the real question we have to answer
> > here.
> >
> > I started updating ServiceMix 4.x to the latest version a while ago,
> > but given the large legacy codebase and the number of subprojects that
> > we have, that is quite an undertaking.  Apart from the JBI itests
> > issue, we would also have to get the Features project upgrade done and
> > then do all the release.  This is why we restarted the ServiceMix 5
> > effort a year ago: to have a single project with just the dependency
> > versions to update and then cut a release would be a really great
> > thing, compared to the amount of work we now have to do.
> >
> > It looks like nobody out here is interested in doing all that work on
> > the 4.x line and from what I read, the jury is still out on what
> > should happen with the ServiceMix 5 effort.  There probably is some
> > value in this type of distribution to get people started with the
> > entire stack of projects more easily, without having to resort to
> > vendor-specific solutions like JBoss Fuse, Fabric8, Talend ESB, ...
> > from day one.
> >
> > We really need some people to do the work though.  If nobody is
> > able/willing to put in the effort, it might be better to look into
> > finishing up the project with a bit of style instead of letting it
> > slowly die in the background.  With a nice announcement, pointing to
> > the appropriate documentation on the Camel, CXF, Karaf, ... websites,
> > we can definitely get the few people that end up on the ServiceMix
> > project website oriented pretty quickly towards a DIY solution
> > starting with a plain Karaf installation.
> >
> > Personally, I'm fine with either solution.  I have always personally
> > liked the Apache ServiceMix project, so if there's some interest to
> > keep doing this, I'll gladly help out there.  But on the other hand:
> > it's pretty hard to build a community around only a single assembly
> > project, so if there's no real interest, I'll gladly work with
> > everyone else to draft up a nice announcement and point people towards
> > a better solution as well.
> >
> > Not sure what the best way is to decide this.  Perhaps start a vote on
> > what to do next?  Given the meaning assigned to the different vote
> > options on https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html, that might
> > give us a good idea about who is actually willing/able to help out,
> > but I'm open to any suggestions here.
> >
> >
> > Regards and thanks again for getting this discussion in the open,
> >
> > Gert Vanthienen
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Gert Vanthienen
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Cristiano Costantini
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > as I'm waiting for Servicemix 4.6.0 to come out because it solves some
> > > problems with the version of some bundles, I was wondering if I should
> > move
> > > to Karaf (2.3.3) instead on using Servicemix as the basis for my
> > > application.
> > >
> > > In fact I use Spring, Pax Web, Camel and CXF, and I'll probably need
> > > ActiveMQ if I need to implement some specific EIP. I need many
> > dependencies
> > > from the servicemix bundles of wrapped dependencies, but I don't other
> > > ServiceMix features, especially NMR that I understand from SMX4NMR-319
> is
> > > blocking release of 4.6.0.
> > >
> > > What you suggest me to do?
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > > Cristiano
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

Jakub Korab
In reply to this post by Cristiano Costantini
I am completely new to the ServiceMix dev list, but thought that it might
be the right time to join in.

I would like to echo the sentiment that ServiceMix is a worthwhile project.
An off-the-shelf assembly of the plain old Karaf-Camel-CXF-ActiveMQ
integration stack has merit in getting newcomers working with, what is in
all fairness, a big enough stack to get your head around without the
additional vendor niceties. A set of instructions to homecook your own ESB
is a step too far for those looking to download and just get going.

If it were to go away, I think it would be to the detriment of the broader
community working around "Karaf-based ESBs", which isn't anywhere near as
catchy a search term as ServiceMix, which has a lot of mindshare. After
all, it's much easier to say "X is kind of like ServiceMix only with..."
rather than explaining your stack from scratch. If that was it's only
merit, it would still be worthwhile to push forward.

With that having been said, I'd like to throw my hat into the ring to help
push ServiceMix along, whether that be through just assembling the latest
and greatest into SMX4.x or on in working towards a new SMX5.

Cheers,

Jakub


On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Cristiano Costantini <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thank you a lot for the intervention Gert, I care this topic.
>
> My (non-binding) opinion is that I am "interested in having an Apache
> project that is solely about combining ActiveMQ, Camel, CXF, Karaf and a
> few other things into a single integration platform distribution" and I add
> that it should be still named "ServiceMix" that, as I said, has a sort of
> marketing and seo indexing value as a landing point for people searching
> for a credible integration platform.
>
>
> If that will be the direction (very simple aggregation of ActiveMQ, Camel,
> CXF, Karaf without JBI and NMR), I can try to do something to contribute.
> I cannot fully commit yet because I don't know if I'm able to achieve the
> expected level of availability and quality, but I'm optimistic on
> availability because at the moment we use ServiceMix at work and I would
> probably be able to combine some efforts, while I can try to join other
> contributors and figure out what is needed to do while they do it.
>
> Of course, if there is someone more competent than me that is willing to
> do, I'll be happy even more and I may focus on other topic (like promoting
> karaf as a platform for web application - I'm kind of studying Karaf as the
> basis for GWT, Spring Security and Spring MVC web applications)
>
> Regards,
> Cristiano
>
>
>
>
> 2014-02-10 14:16 GMT+01:00 Gert Vanthienen <[hidden email]>:
>
> > L.S.,
> >
> >
> > First of all, thank you for starting this discussion!  I definitely
> > agree with everything that has already been said on this thread. We
> > have been ignoring the important, key question for far too long on our
> > mailing lists: Is there a community of users that are interested in
> > having an Apache project that is solely about combining ActiveMQ,
> > Camel, CXF, Karaf and a few other things into a single integration
> > platform distribution?  That is the real question we have to answer
> > here.
> >
> > I started updating ServiceMix 4.x to the latest version a while ago,
> > but given the large legacy codebase and the number of subprojects that
> > we have, that is quite an undertaking.  Apart from the JBI itests
> > issue, we would also have to get the Features project upgrade done and
> > then do all the release.  This is why we restarted the ServiceMix 5
> > effort a year ago: to have a single project with just the dependency
> > versions to update and then cut a release would be a really great
> > thing, compared to the amount of work we now have to do.
> >
> > It looks like nobody out here is interested in doing all that work on
> > the 4.x line and from what I read, the jury is still out on what
> > should happen with the ServiceMix 5 effort.  There probably is some
> > value in this type of distribution to get people started with the
> > entire stack of projects more easily, without having to resort to
> > vendor-specific solutions like JBoss Fuse, Fabric8, Talend ESB, ...
> > from day one.
> >
> > We really need some people to do the work though.  If nobody is
> > able/willing to put in the effort, it might be better to look into
> > finishing up the project with a bit of style instead of letting it
> > slowly die in the background.  With a nice announcement, pointing to
> > the appropriate documentation on the Camel, CXF, Karaf, ... websites,
> > we can definitely get the few people that end up on the ServiceMix
> > project website oriented pretty quickly towards a DIY solution
> > starting with a plain Karaf installation.
> >
> > Personally, I'm fine with either solution.  I have always personally
> > liked the Apache ServiceMix project, so if there's some interest to
> > keep doing this, I'll gladly help out there.  But on the other hand:
> > it's pretty hard to build a community around only a single assembly
> > project, so if there's no real interest, I'll gladly work with
> > everyone else to draft up a nice announcement and point people towards
> > a better solution as well.
> >
> > Not sure what the best way is to decide this.  Perhaps start a vote on
> > what to do next?  Given the meaning assigned to the different vote
> > options on https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html, that might
> > give us a good idea about who is actually willing/able to help out,
> > but I'm open to any suggestions here.
> >
> >
> > Regards and thanks again for getting this discussion in the open,
> >
> > Gert Vanthienen
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Gert Vanthienen
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Cristiano Costantini
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > as I'm waiting for Servicemix 4.6.0 to come out because it solves some
> > > problems with the version of some bundles, I was wondering if I should
> > move
> > > to Karaf (2.3.3) instead on using Servicemix as the basis for my
> > > application.
> > >
> > > In fact I use Spring, Pax Web, Camel and CXF, and I'll probably need
> > > ActiveMQ if I need to implement some specific EIP. I need many
> > dependencies
> > > from the servicemix bundles of wrapped dependencies, but I don't other
> > > ServiceMix features, especially NMR that I understand from SMX4NMR-319
> is
> > > blocking release of 4.6.0.
> > >
> > > What you suggest me to do?
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > > Cristiano
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

Christian Mueller
In reply to this post by Gert Vanthienen
Hi Gert, hi all!

I think there is really a need for an open source ESB. In my opinion, it
should be Apache ServiceMix X.

If it helps, drop the (legacy) support for ServiceMix 4.x and restart with
ServiceMix 5 which should be more easily to maintain.

Ping me, if you have something specific I can work on. You can count on me!

Best,
Christian
-----------------

Software Integration Specialist

Apache Member
V.P. Apache Camel | Apache Camel PMC Member | Apache Camel committer
Apache Incubator PMC Member

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/christian-mueller/11/551/642


On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Gert Vanthienen
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> L.S.,
>
>
> First of all, thank you for starting this discussion!  I definitely
> agree with everything that has already been said on this thread. We
> have been ignoring the important, key question for far too long on our
> mailing lists: Is there a community of users that are interested in
> having an Apache project that is solely about combining ActiveMQ,
> Camel, CXF, Karaf and a few other things into a single integration
> platform distribution?  That is the real question we have to answer
> here.
>
> I started updating ServiceMix 4.x to the latest version a while ago,
> but given the large legacy codebase and the number of subprojects that
> we have, that is quite an undertaking.  Apart from the JBI itests
> issue, we would also have to get the Features project upgrade done and
> then do all the release.  This is why we restarted the ServiceMix 5
> effort a year ago: to have a single project with just the dependency
> versions to update and then cut a release would be a really great
> thing, compared to the amount of work we now have to do.
>
> It looks like nobody out here is interested in doing all that work on
> the 4.x line and from what I read, the jury is still out on what
> should happen with the ServiceMix 5 effort.  There probably is some
> value in this type of distribution to get people started with the
> entire stack of projects more easily, without having to resort to
> vendor-specific solutions like JBoss Fuse, Fabric8, Talend ESB, ...
> from day one.
>
> We really need some people to do the work though.  If nobody is
> able/willing to put in the effort, it might be better to look into
> finishing up the project with a bit of style instead of letting it
> slowly die in the background.  With a nice announcement, pointing to
> the appropriate documentation on the Camel, CXF, Karaf, ... websites,
> we can definitely get the few people that end up on the ServiceMix
> project website oriented pretty quickly towards a DIY solution
> starting with a plain Karaf installation.
>
> Personally, I'm fine with either solution.  I have always personally
> liked the Apache ServiceMix project, so if there's some interest to
> keep doing this, I'll gladly help out there.  But on the other hand:
> it's pretty hard to build a community around only a single assembly
> project, so if there's no real interest, I'll gladly work with
> everyone else to draft up a nice announcement and point people towards
> a better solution as well.
>
> Not sure what the best way is to decide this.  Perhaps start a vote on
> what to do next?  Given the meaning assigned to the different vote
> options on https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html, that might
> give us a good idea about who is actually willing/able to help out,
> but I'm open to any suggestions here.
>
>
> Regards and thanks again for getting this discussion in the open,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Cristiano Costantini
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > as I'm waiting for Servicemix 4.6.0 to come out because it solves some
> > problems with the version of some bundles, I was wondering if I should
> move
> > to Karaf (2.3.3) instead on using Servicemix as the basis for my
> > application.
> >
> > In fact I use Spring, Pax Web, Camel and CXF, and I'll probably need
> > ActiveMQ if I need to implement some specific EIP. I need many
> dependencies
> > from the servicemix bundles of wrapped dependencies, but I don't other
> > ServiceMix features, especially NMR that I understand from SMX4NMR-319 is
> > blocking release of 4.6.0.
> >
> > What you suggest me to do?
> >
> > Thank you!
> > Cristiano
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

Andrew Thorburn
Hey guys,

I'd like to add my support for SMX sticking around as its own thing - we've
recently started using SMX where I work, and it saved me an awful lot of
time, along with leading me to things like Apache Karaf - which I had not
heard of before I started using SMX.

Personally, the most valuable thing that SMX provided me was a collection
of features that are known to play well together, which meant that I could
spend most of my time learning how to *use* those features, rather than
trying to assemble them all together and *then* learning how to use them -
which could be a pretty significant amount of time.

The one other thing I would like to add is that I do use the NMR, simply as
a really easy way to connect two Camel routes in separate bundles without
the hassle of trying to configure JMS routes (this also means that I can
undeploy bundle X, while leaving bundles Y and Z in-place, which is
important for me). I'm sure I could find something to replace it, but
that's the easiest solution for me right now.

I don't know if I could do much to help, except to say that, yes, SMX was
absolutely useful to me, and I would like to see it stick around.

Thanks,

- Andrew


On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Christian Müller <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Gert, hi all!
>
> I think there is really a need for an open source ESB. In my opinion, it
> should be Apache ServiceMix X.
>
> If it helps, drop the (legacy) support for ServiceMix 4.x and restart with
> ServiceMix 5 which should be more easily to maintain.
>
> Ping me, if you have something specific I can work on. You can count on me!
>
> Best,
> Christian
> -----------------
>
> Software Integration Specialist
>
> Apache Member
> V.P. Apache Camel | Apache Camel PMC Member | Apache Camel committer
> Apache Incubator PMC Member
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pub/christian-mueller/11/551/642
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Gert Vanthienen
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
> > L.S.,
> >
> >
> > First of all, thank you for starting this discussion!  I definitely
> > agree with everything that has already been said on this thread. We
> > have been ignoring the important, key question for far too long on our
> > mailing lists: Is there a community of users that are interested in
> > having an Apache project that is solely about combining ActiveMQ,
> > Camel, CXF, Karaf and a few other things into a single integration
> > platform distribution?  That is the real question we have to answer
> > here.
> >
> > I started updating ServiceMix 4.x to the latest version a while ago,
> > but given the large legacy codebase and the number of subprojects that
> > we have, that is quite an undertaking.  Apart from the JBI itests
> > issue, we would also have to get the Features project upgrade done and
> > then do all the release.  This is why we restarted the ServiceMix 5
> > effort a year ago: to have a single project with just the dependency
> > versions to update and then cut a release would be a really great
> > thing, compared to the amount of work we now have to do.
> >
> > It looks like nobody out here is interested in doing all that work on
> > the 4.x line and from what I read, the jury is still out on what
> > should happen with the ServiceMix 5 effort.  There probably is some
> > value in this type of distribution to get people started with the
> > entire stack of projects more easily, without having to resort to
> > vendor-specific solutions like JBoss Fuse, Fabric8, Talend ESB, ...
> > from day one.
> >
> > We really need some people to do the work though.  If nobody is
> > able/willing to put in the effort, it might be better to look into
> > finishing up the project with a bit of style instead of letting it
> > slowly die in the background.  With a nice announcement, pointing to
> > the appropriate documentation on the Camel, CXF, Karaf, ... websites,
> > we can definitely get the few people that end up on the ServiceMix
> > project website oriented pretty quickly towards a DIY solution
> > starting with a plain Karaf installation.
> >
> > Personally, I'm fine with either solution.  I have always personally
> > liked the Apache ServiceMix project, so if there's some interest to
> > keep doing this, I'll gladly help out there.  But on the other hand:
> > it's pretty hard to build a community around only a single assembly
> > project, so if there's no real interest, I'll gladly work with
> > everyone else to draft up a nice announcement and point people towards
> > a better solution as well.
> >
> > Not sure what the best way is to decide this.  Perhaps start a vote on
> > what to do next?  Given the meaning assigned to the different vote
> > options on https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html, that might
> > give us a good idea about who is actually willing/able to help out,
> > but I'm open to any suggestions here.
> >
> >
> > Regards and thanks again for getting this discussion in the open,
> >
> > Gert Vanthienen
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Gert Vanthienen
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Cristiano Costantini
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > as I'm waiting for Servicemix 4.6.0 to come out because it solves some
> > > problems with the version of some bundles, I was wondering if I should
> > move
> > > to Karaf (2.3.3) instead on using Servicemix as the basis for my
> > > application.
> > >
> > > In fact I use Spring, Pax Web, Camel and CXF, and I'll probably need
> > > ActiveMQ if I need to implement some specific EIP. I need many
> > dependencies
> > > from the servicemix bundles of wrapped dependencies, but I don't other
> > > ServiceMix features, especially NMR that I understand from SMX4NMR-319
> is
> > > blocking release of 4.6.0.
> > >
> > > What you suggest me to do?
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > > Cristiano
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

Cristiano Costantini
Il lunedì 10 febbraio 2014, Andrew Thorburn <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

>
> The one other thing I would like to add is that I do use the NMR, simply as
> a really easy way to connect two Camel routes in separate bundles without
> the hassle of trying to configure JMS routes
>

Hi Andrew,
I used NMR too but now I use the Camel VM component for the same purpose.

Regards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

Bart Horré
Hi all,

I'm also "interested in having an Apache
project that is solely about combining ActiveMQ, Camel, CXF, Karaf and a
few other things into a single integration platform distribution"

Like in Andrew's case, ServiceMix was my start in the road to getting to
know Camel, ActiveMQ, CXF, Karaf, ...
I didn't really realize at the time a started out, but I am glad there is
an out of the box solution which supports all these technologies without a
hassle.

Regards

Bart Horré



On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Cristiano Costantini <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Il lunedì 10 febbraio 2014, Andrew Thorburn <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> >
> > The one other thing I would like to add is that I do use the NMR, simply
> as
> > a really easy way to connect two Camel routes in separate bundles without
> > the hassle of trying to configure JMS routes
> >
>
> Hi Andrew,
> I used NMR too but now I use the Camel VM component for the same purpose.
>
> Regards
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

Achim Nierbeck
It's good to see so much support for ServiceMix again.
Looks like a valuable Community is forming up again.
GREAT :)

The reason I told Cristiano to stick to a "self" made
"servicmix-like-container"
is just the turn around timings we do have right now.
And this is just due to the fact that most of the work is done by just to
few people.
Correct me if I'm wrong but right now we have about two people for
Servicmix and
one for Karaf doing 80+ % of the work, at least this is my impression.

So anyone interested in keeping Servicemix alive (including me ;) ) should
go ahead and
try to fix stuff that seems wrong (in documentation or src) help keeping
those turn around timings on releasing low :D

regards, Achim


2014-02-11 8:41 GMT+01:00 Bart Horré <[hidden email]>:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm also "interested in having an Apache
> project that is solely about combining ActiveMQ, Camel, CXF, Karaf and a
> few other things into a single integration platform distribution"
>
> Like in Andrew's case, ServiceMix was my start in the road to getting to
> know Camel, ActiveMQ, CXF, Karaf, ...
> I didn't really realize at the time a started out, but I am glad there is
> an out of the box solution which supports all these technologies without a
> hassle.
>
> Regards
>
> Bart Horré
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Cristiano Costantini <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Il lunedì 10 febbraio 2014, Andrew Thorburn <[hidden email]> ha
> scritto:
> >
> > >
> > > The one other thing I would like to add is that I do use the NMR,
> simply
> > as
> > > a really easy way to connect two Camel routes in separate bundles
> without
> > > the hassle of trying to configure JMS routes
> > >
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> > I used NMR too but now I use the Camel VM component for the same purpose.
> >
> > Regards
> >
>



--

Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer &
Project Lead
OPS4J Pax for Vaadin <http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home>
Commiter & Project Lead
blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

Cristiano Costantini
In reply to this post by Andrew Thorburn
Il lunedì 10 febbraio 2014, Andrew Thorburn <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

>
> The one other thing I would like to add is that I do use the NMR, simply as
> a really easy way to connect two Camel routes in separate bundles without
> the hassle of trying to configure JMS routes
>

Hi Andrew,
I used NMR too but now I use the Camel VM component for the same purpose.

Regards
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

ksobkowiak
In reply to this post by Achim Nierbeck
Hi

In my opinion we should have a custom Karaf distribution in Apache which
assemblies Camel, CXF, ActiveMQ, some BPM (e.g. Activiti). It can still
be ServiceMix. We should only think about making ServiceMix better
upgradeable to the new Karaf kernel. I think also, we should start
ServiceMix with Karaf 3.x.

Best regards
Krzysztof


On 11.02.2014 08:46, Achim Nierbeck wrote:

> It's good to see so much support for ServiceMix again.
> Looks like a valuable Community is forming up again.
> GREAT :)
>
> The reason I told Cristiano to stick to a "self" made
> "servicmix-like-container"
> is just the turn around timings we do have right now.
> And this is just due to the fact that most of the work is done by just to
> few people.
> Correct me if I'm wrong but right now we have about two people for
> Servicmix and
> one for Karaf doing 80+ % of the work, at least this is my impression.
>
> So anyone interested in keeping Servicemix alive (including me ;) ) should
> go ahead and
> try to fix stuff that seems wrong (in documentation or src) help keeping
> those turn around timings on releasing low :D
>
> regards, Achim
>
>
> 2014-02-11 8:41 GMT+01:00 Bart Horré <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm also "interested in having an Apache
>> project that is solely about combining ActiveMQ, Camel, CXF, Karaf and a
>> few other things into a single integration platform distribution"
>>
>> Like in Andrew's case, ServiceMix was my start in the road to getting to
>> know Camel, ActiveMQ, CXF, Karaf, ...
>> I didn't really realize at the time a started out, but I am glad there is
>> an out of the box solution which supports all these technologies without a
>> hassle.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Bart Horré
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Cristiano Costantini <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Il lunedì 10 febbraio 2014, Andrew Thorburn <[hidden email]> ha
>> scritto:
>>>> The one other thing I would like to add is that I do use the NMR,
>> simply
>>> as
>>>> a really easy way to connect two Camel routes in separate bundles
>> without
>>>> the hassle of trying to configure JMS routes
>>>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>> I used NMR too but now I use the Camel VM component for the same purpose.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>
>


--
Krzysztof Sobkowiak

JEE & OSS Architect | Technical Architect @ Capgemini
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

Achim Nierbeck
Hi,

sounds reasonable to me, we might be able to push those enterprise features
of Karaf to ServiceMix.
So have "Released" Feature descriptors available from ServiceMix and a
pre-assembled ServiceMix Container with dedicated features.
This way it's easier to have those openEJB features and other stuff that
runs on top of Karaf at one place.
For example the right now kind of "neglected" WebConsole of Karaf could be
moved here.
This way we'd have a one Console fit's them all, but again on feature
basis, so everyone is either free to install
and use it or use something different :)

regards, Achim


2014-02-11 11:55 GMT+01:00 Krzysztof Sobkowiak <[hidden email]>:

> Hi
>
> In my opinion we should have a custom Karaf distribution in Apache which
> assemblies Camel, CXF, ActiveMQ, some BPM (e.g. Activiti). It can still be
> ServiceMix. We should only think about making ServiceMix better upgradeable
> to the new Karaf kernel. I think also, we should start ServiceMix with
> Karaf 3.x.
>
> Best regards
> Krzysztof
>
>
>
> On 11.02.2014 08:46, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>
>> It's good to see so much support for ServiceMix again.
>> Looks like a valuable Community is forming up again.
>> GREAT :)
>>
>> The reason I told Cristiano to stick to a "self" made
>> "servicmix-like-container"
>> is just the turn around timings we do have right now.
>> And this is just due to the fact that most of the work is done by just to
>> few people.
>> Correct me if I'm wrong but right now we have about two people for
>> Servicmix and
>> one for Karaf doing 80+ % of the work, at least this is my impression.
>>
>> So anyone interested in keeping Servicemix alive (including me ;) ) should
>> go ahead and
>> try to fix stuff that seems wrong (in documentation or src) help keeping
>> those turn around timings on releasing low :D
>>
>> regards, Achim
>>
>>
>> 2014-02-11 8:41 GMT+01:00 Bart Horré <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>  Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'm also "interested in having an Apache
>>> project that is solely about combining ActiveMQ, Camel, CXF, Karaf and a
>>> few other things into a single integration platform distribution"
>>>
>>> Like in Andrew's case, ServiceMix was my start in the road to getting to
>>> know Camel, ActiveMQ, CXF, Karaf, ...
>>> I didn't really realize at the time a started out, but I am glad there is
>>> an out of the box solution which supports all these technologies without
>>> a
>>> hassle.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Bart Horré
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Cristiano Costantini <
>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Il lunedì 10 febbraio 2014, Andrew Thorburn <[hidden email]> ha
>>>>
>>> scritto:
>>>
>>>> The one other thing I would like to add is that I do use the NMR,
>>>>>
>>>> simply
>>>
>>>> as
>>>>
>>>>> a really easy way to connect two Camel routes in separate bundles
>>>>>
>>>> without
>>>
>>>> the hassle of trying to configure JMS routes
>>>>>
>>>>>  Hi Andrew,
>>>> I used NMR too but now I use the Camel VM component for the same
>>>> purpose.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Krzysztof Sobkowiak
>
> JEE & OSS Architect | Technical Architect @ Capgemini
> 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
>



--

Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer &
Project Lead
OPS4J Pax for Vaadin <http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home>
Commiter & Project Lead
blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

iocanel
Users would definitely want to have an aggregate project. The question
is if there are enough contributors to maintain it.

--
Ioannis Canellos

Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com
Twitter: iocanel
Ioannis Canellos
http://iocanel.blogspot.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

Achim Nierbeck
I wonder when and why that happened ....
... but this is a good point for all those people that
raised their voices the last 4 days to show their pride of
the project and get into it ;)

regards, Achim




2014-02-11 13:37 GMT+01:00 Ioannis Canellos <[hidden email]>:

> Users would definitely want to have an aggregate project. The question
> is if there are enough contributors to maintain it.
>
> --
> Ioannis Canellos
>
> Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com
> Twitter: iocanel
>



--

Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC
OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer &
Project Lead
OPS4J Pax for Vaadin <http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home>
Commiter & Project Lead
blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

ksobkowiak
I'm ready to contribute to ServiceMix (and Karaf too) but the next 4
weeks I have still limited time capacities (due to the trainings I'm
preparing for my company)

regards
Krzysztof

On 11.02.2014 14:46, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
> I wonder when and why that happened ....
> ... but this is a good point for all those people that
> raised their voices the last 4 days to show their pride of
> the project and get into it ;)
>
> regards, Achim
>
>

--
Krzysztof Sobkowiak

JEE & OSS Architect | Technical Architect @ Capgemini
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

Johan Edstrom-2
Where do we want to start?
Gert and I spoke about this quite a long time ago, what really is needed is a new parent Pom - then removal of NMR/Jbi as direct deps, maybe those two could be better solved with embedded and hidden older jars.

Sent from my pressure cooker.

> On Feb 11, 2014, at 9:11, Krzysztof Sobkowiak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm ready to contribute to ServiceMix (and Karaf too) but the next 4 weeks I have still limited time capacities (due to the trainings I'm preparing for my company)
>
> regards
> Krzysztof
>
>> On 11.02.2014 14:46, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>> I wonder when and why that happened ....
>> ... but this is a good point for all those people that
>> raised their voices the last 4 days to show their pride of
>> the project and get into it ;)
>>
>> regards, Achim
>
> --
> Krzysztof Sobkowiak
>
> JEE & OSS Architect | Technical Architect @ Capgemini
> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

ksobkowiak
In reply to this post by Achim Nierbeck
I think, the enterprise features extracted form Karaf should be still
part of Karaf project (as a sub-project) as the features should be in
particular Karaf extensions which can be easily installed on vanilla
Karaf. I think they are more related to Karaf than related to
ServiceMix. ServiceMix will be only a custom Karaf distribution
assembling the features needed for ESB. I don't think the ServiceMix
distribution will include the EJB features - it will be rather
installed  on vanilla Karaf (adding the EJB functionality) or shipped
as  a custom distribution (KarafEE)  than shipped with ServiceMix.  I
think, all enterprise features should be maintained by a Karaf
subproject, which should also contain the current ServiceMix features,
like Activiti.

Best regards
Krzysztof

On 11.02.2014 12:34, Achim Nierbeck wrote:

> Hi,
>
> sounds reasonable to me, we might be able to push those enterprise features
> of Karaf to ServiceMix.
> So have "Released" Feature descriptors available from ServiceMix and a
> pre-assembled ServiceMix Container with dedicated features.
> This way it's easier to have those openEJB features and other stuff that
> runs on top of Karaf at one place.
> For example the right now kind of "neglected" WebConsole of Karaf could be
> moved here.
> This way we'd have a one Console fit's them all, but again on feature
> basis, so everyone is either free to install
> and use it or use something different :)
>
> regards, Achim
>
>
> 2014-02-11 11:55 GMT+01:00 Krzysztof Sobkowiak <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> In my opinion we should have a custom Karaf distribution in Apache which
>> assemblies Camel, CXF, ActiveMQ, some BPM (e.g. Activiti). It can still be
>> ServiceMix. We should only think about making ServiceMix better upgradeable
>> to the new Karaf kernel. I think also, we should start ServiceMix with
>> Karaf 3.x.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Krzysztof
>>
>>

--
Krzysztof Sobkowiak

JEE & OSS Architect | Technical Architect @ Capgemini
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

Cristiano Costantini
I fully agree with the strategy proposed by Krzysztof ;-)

Il martedì 11 febbraio 2014, Krzysztof Sobkowiak <[hidden email]>
ha scritto:

> I think, the enterprise features extracted form Karaf should be still part
> of Karaf project (as a sub-project) as the features should be in particular
> Karaf extensions which can be easily installed on vanilla Karaf. I think
> they are more related to Karaf than related to ServiceMix. ServiceMix will
> be only a custom Karaf distribution assembling the features needed for ESB.
> I don't think the ServiceMix distribution will include the EJB features -
> it will be rather installed  on vanilla Karaf (adding the EJB
> functionality) or shipped as  a custom distribution (KarafEE)  than shipped
> with ServiceMix.  I think, all enterprise features should be maintained by
> a Karaf subproject, which should also contain the current ServiceMix
> features, like Activiti.
>
> Best regards
> Krzysztof
>
> On 11.02.2014 12:34, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> sounds reasonable to me, we might be able to push those enterprise
>> features
>> of Karaf to ServiceMix.
>> So have "Released" Feature descriptors available from ServiceMix and a
>> pre-assembled ServiceMix Container with dedicated features.
>> This way it's easier to have those openEJB features and other stuff that
>> runs on top of Karaf at one place.
>> For example the right now kind of "neglected" WebConsole of Karaf could be
>> moved here.
>> This way we'd have a one Console fit's them all, but again on feature
>> basis, so everyone is either free to install
>> and use it or use something different :)
>>
>> regards, Achim
>>
>>
>> 2014-02-11 11:55 GMT+01:00 Krzysztof Sobkowiak <[hidden email]
>> >:
>>
>>  Hi
>>>
>>> In my opinion we should have a custom Karaf distribution in Apache which
>>> assemblies Camel, CXF, ActiveMQ, some BPM (e.g. Activiti). It can still
>>> be
>>> ServiceMix. We should only think about making ServiceMix better
>>> upgradeable
>>> to the new Karaf kernel. I think also, we should start ServiceMix with
>>> Karaf 3.x.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>>
>>>
> --
> Krzysztof Sobkowiak
>
> JEE & OSS Architect | Technical Architect @ Capgemini
> 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
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

mikek753
Hello SMX team,

Would you mind to think about creating parent POM that can define all
versions for direct dependencies of Karaf, Camel, AMQ and CXF?
Currently each project has own "parent" and current SMX uses NMR external
POM that makes very difficult component version upgrades.
No, I don't know how to do it right to have in parallel SMX parent and each
top component parent, where component parent will not be used for
dependencies version definition.
For example, something will parse each (Karaf, Camel, CXF, AMQ) parent POMs
and append appropriate info to new SMX parent POM, resulting POM will have
all versions in single place, yes it will rebuild all top components to get
SMX.

Right now versions are hardcoded at component parent POM, for example Camel
<jackson-version>1.9.12</jackson-version>
<jackson2-version>2.2.2</jackson2-version>
<jackrabbit-version>2.2.12</jackrabbit-version>
<jain-sip-ri-bundle-version>1.2.154_2</jain-sip-ri-bundle-version>
<jasper-bundle-version>6.0.36_1</jasper-bundle-version>
<jasypt-bundle-version>1.9.1_1</jasypt-bundle-version>
<jasypt-version>1.9.1</jasypt-version>

If I need to use in resulting SMX Jackson 1.9.13 than it breaks Camel routes
due to version mismatch and so on.

PaxLogging even more complicated.

Mike.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cristiano Costantini
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:56 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: To servicemix or not to servicemix

I fully agree with the strategy proposed by Krzysztof ;-)

Il martedì 11 febbraio 2014, Krzysztof Sobkowiak <[hidden email]>
ha scritto:

> I think, the enterprise features extracted form Karaf should be still part
> of Karaf project (as a sub-project) as the features should be in
> particular
> Karaf extensions which can be easily installed on vanilla Karaf. I think
> they are more related to Karaf than related to ServiceMix. ServiceMix will
> be only a custom Karaf distribution assembling the features needed for
> ESB.
> I don't think the ServiceMix distribution will include the EJB features -
> it will be rather installed  on vanilla Karaf (adding the EJB
> functionality) or shipped as  a custom distribution (KarafEE)  than
> shipped
> with ServiceMix.  I think, all enterprise features should be maintained by
> a Karaf subproject, which should also contain the current ServiceMix
> features, like Activiti.
>
> Best regards
> Krzysztof
>
> On 11.02.2014 12:34, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> sounds reasonable to me, we might be able to push those enterprise
>> features
>> of Karaf to ServiceMix.
>> So have "Released" Feature descriptors available from ServiceMix and a
>> pre-assembled ServiceMix Container with dedicated features.
>> This way it's easier to have those openEJB features and other stuff that
>> runs on top of Karaf at one place.
>> For example the right now kind of "neglected" WebConsole of Karaf could
>> be
>> moved here.
>> This way we'd have a one Console fit's them all, but again on feature
>> basis, so everyone is either free to install
>> and use it or use something different :)
>>
>> regards, Achim
>>
>>
>> 2014-02-11 11:55 GMT+01:00 Krzysztof Sobkowiak <[hidden email]
>> >:
>>
>>  Hi
>>>
>>> In my opinion we should have a custom Karaf distribution in Apache which
>>> assemblies Camel, CXF, ActiveMQ, some BPM (e.g. Activiti). It can still
>>> be
>>> ServiceMix. We should only think about making ServiceMix better
>>> upgradeable
>>> to the new Karaf kernel. I think also, we should start ServiceMix with
>>> Karaf 3.x.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>>
>>>
> --
> Krzysztof Sobkowiak
>
> JEE & OSS Architect | Technical Architect @ Capgemini
> 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
>


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

123