Mailing-List: contact dev-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@camel.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of claus.ibsen@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.223.180 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADHGh9U1nzt69ar3Z3towStA485e1OnQTyx6Y58cFzFF11tKsw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALhQg-bPFJgWU3PvmxKPH5A+K2N72jTkuo1hjRGRuAXU155jCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADHGh9U1nzt69ar3Z3towStA485e1OnQTyx6Y58cFzFF11tKsw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Claus Ibsen <claus.ibsen@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:16:46 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAGB5yN=0dP5KjyKwCNz8pcp_hJa5cZUa+X1Sf3kD1tgNSjYcUA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Scala components in ASF Camel
To: dev@camel.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Ioannis Canellos <iocanel@gmail.com> wrote:
> I prefer having all sources in java, however not accepting scala
> contributions in the community doesn't seem right to me.
> I'd say let's try to keep everything java, but if there is a good reason
> for people using scala and we have a good number of committers willing to
> work in scala a scala-components module doesn't sound bad to me.
>

+1

I dont see much interrest in creating Scala based components for
Camel, just because its Scala programming language. Though having a
number of Camel components using Scala because they integrate with
Scala
based libraries is OKAY with me. Though if someone creates a new Camel
component to integration with Facebook, then I would favor that being
Java based.

I guess what triggered this was that Stomp component that was Scala
based, because it uses a Scala library for the STOMP communication. If
I had a choice and there was a pure Java stomp client I would favor
that over the Scala based. But I guess there is not, so I am okay with
the camel-stomp being Scala based for now.

The only concern for Scala based components is the bad backwards
compatability Scala has. eg the Scala 2.9 vs 2.10 debacle. I think for
Scala based components we cannot dual support both Scala 2.9 and 2.10
binary releases. And therefore they would be Scala 2.10 based for now.

>
> --
> *Ioannis Canellos*
> *
>
> **
> Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com
> **
> Twitter: iocanel
> *


-- 
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
Email: cibsen@redhat.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus
Blog: http://davsclaus.com
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen