camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Contributing Scomp Component (was Contributing Stomp Component)
Date Fri, 08 Feb 2013 01:34:13 GMT
Willem, I know all that. I understand it makes sense from the 
contributor's point of view. It saves contributors time, effort and 
costs. It ensures the their component will continue to work with future 
versions of camel. That benefits the community too. Personally I applaud 
that attitude.

However, you completely miss the mark. You seem to be disagreeing, yet 
you come with arguments we all agree with. If you want to build 
consensus for accepting this component, address the concerns raised in 
the previous mails.

Cheers,
Hadrian



On 02/07/2013 07:51 PM, Willem jiang wrote:
> Putting the components into Apache Camel umbral could save some work of contributor when
we release the Camel. We add the camel-extra due to the license issue only. It is hard to
say no for the contributing to Apache Camel if the component has the ASF license already.
That is way we have more then one hundred components today.
>
> Current the hard part is the Stomp Component is written with Scala, as we have the camel-scala,
I don't think why we can not host the camel-stomp component except few people know how to
maintain it. I think few people know about jclouds, hl7,redis … but we are open mind to
host these components.
>
> --
> Willem Jiang
>
> Red Hat, Inc.
> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
> Web: http://www.fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com
> Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (http://willemjiang.blogspot.com/) (English)
>            http://jnn.iteye.com (http://jnn.javaeye.com/) (Chinese)
> Twitter: willemjiang
> Weibo: 姜宁willem
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 8, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>
>> I also believe Apache Camel the way it is organized now is not the place
>> for the scomp component. We are not debating the quality of the scomp
>> component. We know however from past experience that the community's
>> ability to support scala based code was not at par with the rest of the
>> code base.
>>
>> There are camel components developed and supported outside the ASF. We
>> encourage and support that, so that could be an option (camel-extra was
>> mentioned I think in another thread). There are other possibilities not
>> yet discussed, like moving non-java artifacts into sub-projects
>> maintained by people who are best qualified for that.
>>
>> All potential solutions have pros and cons, I dunno what would be more
>> appropriate. At this point I agree with Christian, Apache Camel would
>> probably not be a cozy home for scomp.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02/07/2013 05:15 PM, Christian Müller wrote:
>>> Please find my comments inline.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Henryk Konsek <hekonsek@gmail.com (mailto:hekonsek@gmail.com)>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Because Camel and Camel-Extra are Java based projects, I don't think
we
>>>>> should integrate this component (even if it's a cool component for Scala
>>>>> guys).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid I must disagree :) .
>>>>
>>>> We support Scala as the 1st class citizen DSL language for Camel and I
>>>> don't see any reason why we should exclude components using Scala
>>>> libraries.
>>>
>>>
>>> The component under discussion IS WRITTEN in Scala. It's not, it "only" use
>>> a Scala library.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also from the end-user point of view Scala is just an another library.
>>>> I could create the following route in Java DSL and I would not be even
>>>> aware that I'm using Scala under the hood. For example:
>>>> from("jms:queue").to("someScalaComponent:foo")
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not the user point of view which concerns me. I'm aware it's
>>> transparent for the user.
>>> Only a few committers are familiar with Scala. This is what concerns me.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The core of the Camel and the Java-related components are written in
>>>> Java, but in my humble opinion there is no reason we shouldn't provide
>>>> components written in Scala, as long as the subject of the component
>>>> is also written in Scala.
>>>
>>>
>>> Agree. That's the reason why we have a Scala component, a Scala DSL, ...
>>> But providing an integration with Stomp is not a Scala subject IMO.
>>> And there is no reason why this component can not be developed in Java.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we could settle some "official policy" regarding Scala-related
>>>> code for Camel?
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see the need right now. There are many other scripting languages
>>> running in a JVM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_JVM_languages).
>>> Should we also accept new components written in these languages? I don't
>>> think so...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Henryk Konsek
>>>> http://henryk-konsek.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>
>

Mime
View raw message