activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Bentley <abent...@ll.mit.edu>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Custom Object Serialisation Support
Date Fri, 02 Jun 2017 17:52:40 GMT
It depends what the project needs.
If the project can perform all its functions using camel api and
capabilities as provided, then use it.
If the project needs finer control or flexibility that can only be
achieved with native api, then use that.

On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 18:26 +0100, Michael André Pearce wrote:
> That makes sense to me I agree on that.
> 
> Do you think it's better to have tools that present jms api like
> pooled connection factory and this, sitting in artemis as extensions
> or in camel project?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On 2 Jun 2017, at 18:20, Timothy Bish <tabish121@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 06/02/2017 01:16 PM, Michael André Pearce wrote:
> > > Yeas but we just want a JMS Api wrapper that exposes again JMS
> > > api, here.
> > 
> > My point being, don't call it camel-x as it isn't camel and would
> > cause confusion.  Calling it camel-jms-wrapper leads one to believe
> > you've wrapped camel-jms (which is a JMS wrapper) with a wrapper
> > making it more JMS'y?
> > 
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > 
> > > > > On 2 Jun 2017, at 18:04, Timothy Bish <tabish121@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 06/02/2017 11:08 AM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> > > > > You know what would be cool IMO?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Create a camel-jms-tool / camel-jms-wrapper (whatever the
> > > > > name you need):
> > > > 
> > > > Camel already has a JMS wrapper that takes a connection
> > > > factory, it's called camel-jms, or if you don't want any spring
> > > > deps then camel-sjms
> > > > 
> > > > > Add a couple of tools there:
> > > > > - The connection factory that we need to share with qpid-jms
> > > > > - This class that Micahel is writing..
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > and it would be a nice marriage. This camel-jms-wrapper could
> > > > > be
> > > > > lightweight and offer not many dependencies on camel itself.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Just brain storming ^^^^
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Clebert Suconic
> > > > > <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Martyn Taylor <mtaylor@redh
> > > > > > at.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > So, I could originally see a requirement for controlling
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > (de)serialization process for performance or security
> > > > > > > reasons, whilst also
> > > > > > > controlling data format.  I still think having something
> > > > > > > light weight that
> > > > > > > gives users control over this (outside of overriding the
> > > > > > > java serialization
> > > > > > > methods) may be useful.  It would only take a couple
of
> > > > > > > lines of code in
> > > > > > > the client to do it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I think so... Camel will .. as far as I know.. will make
> > > > > > you commit
> > > > > > the consumer and do an ack on every message received like
> > > > > > MDBs do...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Introducing Camel just for the sake of serialization
> > > > > > doesn't seem the
> > > > > > right decision to me.. there's a lot more interesting on
> > > > > > Camel than
> > > > > > just the serialization mechanism.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > But, if this thread is really only about integrating
> > > > > > > multiple technologies,
> > > > > > > by controlling bytes that are sent over the wire then I
> > > > > > > have to agree with
> > > > > > > Tim, in that Camel does seem to be a good fit for this
> > > > > > > problem.  Michael, I
> > > > > > > can see your point re: the success of the Kafka model,
if
> > > > > > > you feel that
> > > > > > > this is largely down to the API and the abstraction of
> > > > > > > the serialization
> > > > > > > process, how about just wrapping a Camel context?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I am not sure what performance implications this would
> > > > > > make.. and it
> > > > > > seems more complicated to be used.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > A simpler API has a higher chance of success.
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Tim Bish
> > > > twitter: @tabish121
> > > > blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> > > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Tim Bish
> > twitter: @tabish121
> > blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
> > 
Mime
View raw message