camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott England-Sullivan <sully6...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSION] Adding Support For Gemini Blueprint
Date Mon, 05 Nov 2012 20:46:08 GMT
Hi Benjamin,

Its not that I found anything with Camel.  Its the documentation from the
Gemini Blueprint project that concerns me.  Reading the following:

>From the Gemini Blueprint Migration Document
http://www.eclipse.org/gemini/blueprint/documentation/migration/:


{snip}

** Removed deprecated modules **
As of Gemini Blueprint M1, not all modules or projects inside Spring DM
have been moved. At the moment only the io, core, extender and test modules
have transitioned are provided in M1. With the up-coming release of OSGi
RFC-66, the web support is being discontinued. Existing users are
encouraged to look at Eclipse Gemini Web project. The plans for the Maven
archetype and annotation extension are undefined for the moment and these
modules are NOT included in Gemini Blueprint project.

{snip}


While there may be minimal or small issues for Camel itself, Camel Users
may have extended or used features based on Spring DM.  Given that, I don't
feel comfortable stating anything less than it can/will break backwards
compatibility.

Make sense?

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Benjamin Graf <benjamin.graf@gmx.net>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would recommend Option 3a with an additional rename of camel-blueprint
> component to camel-aries-blueprint just to be clean and avoid any further
> friction.
>
> Btw. which breaking backwards compatibilities did you find with Spring DM
> and
> Gemini Blueprint in Option 1 Cons? I didn't find any while evaluating, but
> you're right that this can change in the future.
>
> Best,
> Benjamin
>
> On 05.11.2012 17:58, Scott England-Sullivan wrote:
> > Hello All,
> >
> > We have had a request to add support for Gemini Blueprint in Camel.  I
> have
> > logged ticket CAMEL-5743
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-5743>to track it.  Gemini
> > Blueprint is not fully backwards compatible with
> > Spring DM though requiring some decisions on how to support it moving
> > forward.  I have assembled the options below and would like some feedback
> > before moving forward.  They are:
> >
> >
> > Option 1:  Upgrade camel-spring to Gemini Blueprint
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Simple update to the current camel-spring component to use Gemini
> Blueprint
> > 1.0.x
> >
> > Pros:
> > * Simplest
> > * Requires limited changes to current ITests
> >
> > Cons:
> > * Breaks backwards compatibility with Spring DM as some of the current
> > Spring DM features are not or no longer will be supported by Gemini
> > Blueprint
> > * Breaks backwards compatibility with camel-spring
> >
> >
> > Option 2: Create a new camel-gemini-blueprint component
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This option keeps the camel-spring component as-is and create a new
> > camel-gemini-blueprint component.  Since the current camel-spring
> component
> > has Spring DM support embedded would not be possible to have both
> > camel-spring and camel-gemini-blueprint deployed to the same container.
>  We
> > would need to copy the necessary bits of the camel-spring component into
> > the new camel-gemini-blueprint component using Maven to make the new
> > component completely independent of camel-spring.
> >
> > Pros:
> > * Keeps camel-spring backwards compatible
> >
> > Cons:
> > * Kludgy but works
> > * Possible maintenance issues
> > * Requires a new and separate ITest project to test Gemini Blueprint
> based
> > Camel code
> >
> >
> > Option 3: Create new camel-spring-dm and camel-gemini-blueprint
> components
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This option would move the current Spring DM/OSGi support to a new
> > camel-spring-dm component.  Both the new camel-spring-dm and
> > camel-gemini-blueprint component would then have a dependency on
> > camel-spring without the need to copy resources into either component.
> >
> > Pros:
> > * Clean separation of the code allows each component to be supported and
> to
> > evolve independently
> >
> > Cons:
> > * Requires new feature definitions
> > * Requires a new and separate ITest project to test Gemini Blueprint
> based
> > Camel code
> >
> >
> > Option 4: ???
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > I personally believe Option 3 is the correct path moving forward but what
> > are your thoughts?
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Scott ES
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
-- 
Scott England-Sullivan
Apache Camel Committer
Principal Consultant / Sr. Architect | Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
Web:     fusesource.com <http://www.fusesource.com> |
redhat.com<http://www.redhat.com>
Blog:     sully6768.blogspot.com
Twitter: sully6768

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message