camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Schneider <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] - API stability in Camel 2.x
Date Tue, 06 Sep 2011 06:52:58 GMT
Yes there are some cases where I did not create a compatibility classes. 
But these should not be in the camel API. (org.apache.camel, 
Of course I know that the API is not self contained and so people use 
more than the API. I did it where I think the change will not affect 
many or any people.
Of course we need to check this. That is why I propose a release candidate.

If you find some that should be more compatible then give me a hint and 
I ifx these.


Am 06.09.2011 06:40, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Johan Edstrom<>  wrote:
>> With deprecate changes, we'll have no issues at all, so there I do not see it as
a "change" at all.
> Its not only deprecated changes. What we have is a mix of changes:
> 1) classes being deleted (without any prior warnings, they were not
> @deprecated etc.)
> 2) classes being moved
> 3) classes being moved, including API changes
> 4) classes being moved, and leaving a stub class as @deprecated in
> place of the old class
> In terms of the item #4, then that is not a 100% backwards compatible
> change. There is a couple of issues. The stub class is not active in
> use and the stub class is not unit tested. For example if the Camel
> API exposes an API which returns the given class, then with this
> change, that API will now return the new class, which causes
> ClassCastExceptions for end users who was depending on the old API.
>> /je
>> On Sep 5, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Zbarcea Hadrian wrote:
>>> Claus,
>>> How exactly did you get to figure out what the community wants "NO CHANGES" in
the the API an via what process were you nominated to express that opinion?
>>> The reality is that the API did change in every single minor release of Camel,
and my understanding is that this is an effort to actually clean it up and make sure it does
not happen anymore after 3.0. The changes put on now are the painless ones that could be done
before that. Afaik, you provided some useful feedback for some of these changes.
>>> Hadrian
>>> On Sep 5, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>> I am writing this mail with a "community hat" as well being a very
>>>> concerned Camel team member.
>>>> The API in camel-core had a fair number of changes recently, which is
>>>> a strong concern from a community point of view.
>>>> Basically the community views Camel 2.x as an mature and well
>>>> established project, but also an "old and stable" product because of
>>>> Camel 2.x being 2+ years old.
>>>> In summary the community wants in Camel 2.x
>>>> The community do not care if class is named X or placed in Y etc. The
>>>> community care about that the class is kept named X and kept placed in
>>>> Y.
>>>> That said, API changes is needed from time to time, and this is why
>>>> you accumulate API change ideas in roadmap wiki pages, TODO in the
>>>> source code etc. And possible some JIRA tickets.
>>>> Then when a new major version is in the works such as Camel 3.0, then
>>>> those API changes can be executed.
>>>> In fact designing an API is a bigger challenge than at first thought.
>>>> Today you feel class X should be named and placed in Y package. To
>>>> days later it should be named X2 and placed in Z package instead. To
>>>> give amble time for API changes to settled down, and see how it "works
>>>> out" then milestone releases of the 3.0 is being released. This gives
>>>> the community and early adopters a changes to help out and give
>>>> feedback. This is common practice and how other projects do.
>>>> The Apache Camel 2.x project is a very successful project and its
>>>> usage have reached beyond what you may see as a typical situation. We
>>>> have many other open source projects which integrate directly with
>>>> Camel in their products. We have other open source projects and
>>>> commercial products that is based on top of Camel, or using Camel
>>>> heavily internally. Their most likely use
>>>> the API in ways the typical end user does not. So bottom line the
>>>> exposed API is in use out there.
>>>> The Camel team ove to the community to keep the API stable regardless
>>>> if a class could be renamed to X to have a bit better name etc.
>>>> Likewise it does not give confort in the community if the API is kept
>>>> changing and their use of the API keeps being @deprecated.
>>>> So when they compile or upgrade to a new version, they get scared
>>>> because of the sheer number of @deprecate warnings.
>>>> It is a costly $$$ for any organization to change source code, as
>>>> often rigors testing and procedures kicks in, when the source code
>>>> must be changed.
>>>> Likewise the Apache Camel subversion repository on trunk, is not a
>>>> personal * experiment* branch where the Camel committers should "play"
>>>> and move around with classes and whatnot. It would be better to setup
>>>> a branch or a personal project on github etc to work on the expriment
>>>> (for example as I did with the simple language improvements project).
>>>>  From community point of view. Keep the API stable in our "old" and
>>>> beloved Camel 2.x product.
>>>>  From community point of view. Start a discussion about Camel 3.0, as
>>>> we think the Camel 2.x product is "old and stable".
>>>> But the community would like a brand new Camel 3.0 in early 2012.
>>>> --
>>>> Claus Ibsen
>>>> -----------------
>>>> FuseSource
>>>> Email:
>>>> Web:
>>>> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
>>>> Blog:
>>>> Author of Camel in Action:

Christian Schneider

Open Source Architect

View raw message