camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Scope of org.apache.camel.spi
Date Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:53:29 GMT
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Christian Schneider
<chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> So where do you propose to put them?
>
> 1. org.apache.camel
> 2. org.apache.camel.api.management
>

I propose to put them here, where they where already
3. org.apache.camel.management

These annotations are part of the management API in Camel and IMHO
should be in that package.



> I propose to go with 2 and create an api package with subpackages so we can
> structure org.apache.camel better. In the long run I would like to also move
> the whole camel api into an api package to make it clearer but that will
> probably create too much incompatibility.
>
> Christian
>
>
> Am 24.08.2011 14:13, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Christian Schneider
>> <chris@die-schneider.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I wonder what our scope for the org.apache.camel.spi package is vs the
>>> org.apache.camel (API) package.
>>>
>>> I know two valid definitions for API vs SPI:
>>>
>>> 1) API interfaces are called by the user to invoke functionality of the
>>> framework. So API interfaces are implemented by the framework. SPI
>>> interfaces are implemented by the user to change functionality of the
>>> framework or for callbacks
>>> 2) SPI interfaces are for third party modules while API interfaces are
>>> for
>>> users
>>>
>>> So the current case for me is the new JMX annotations. Are they SPI
>>> interfaces or API interfaces?
>>>
>> They are API interfaces. Just like @Consumer, @Produce and any of the
>> other API Camel annotations we have.
>> Its just that these annotations is for management enabling your
>> business logic / custom components or whatnot.
>>
>>
>>
>>> So what is your opinion about the specific and the general case.
>>>
>>> As a side question: The org.apache.camel package has grown quite large. I
>>> think we should create specialized packages for it. As we are talking
>>> about
>>> the camel API org.apache.camel.api.* would be a good name in my opinion.
>>> So
>>> the questions are: Should we create such specialized packages? Should we
>>> move API parts there? Should we only use the new packages for new stuff?
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Christian Schneider
>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>>
>>> Open Source Architect
>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> Open Source Architect
> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>
>



-- 
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
FuseSource
Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/

Mime
View raw message