camel-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Claus Ibsen (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CAMEL-10222) camel-spring-boot - New starters and BOMs
Date Tue, 09 Aug 2016 07:43:20 GMT


Claus Ibsen commented on CAMEL-10222:

I see your option 3 + 4 as something we should do later. Eg concentre on the basics first
to get all the starter modules and itests to work fine.
We can then later look at variants (maybe for the next release).

> camel-spring-boot - New starters and BOMs
> -----------------------------------------
>                 Key: CAMEL-10222
>                 URL:
>             Project: Camel
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>            Reporter: Nicola Ferraro
>            Assignee: Nicola Ferraro
> It would be great if all camel components could be mixed-in in a spring-boot application
without having to worry about dependencies.
> This would allow users to choose the camel components in a tool like forge on fabric8
or spring initializr to produce a base artifact. Writing camel routes will be the only task
left to the user. 
> Unfortunately, integration tests have shown that there are many (small, trivial) issues
that need to be fixed before people can use a component with spring-boot (list follows).
> A possible solution that will provide a better experience with spring-boot would be:
> - Providing a new spring-boot bom
> - Providing a spring-boot-starter project for each camel component
> A user application pom will look like the following:
> {code:xml}
> <project xmlns=""
>          xmlns:xsi=""
>          xsi:schemaLocation="">
>     <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
>     <groupId></groupId>
>     <artifactId>myapp</artifactId>
>     <version>1.0</version>
>     <dependencyManagement>
>         <dependencies>
>             <dependency>
>                 <groupId>org.springframework.boot</groupId>
>                 <artifactId>spring-boot-dependencies</artifactId>
>                 <version>xxx</version>
>                 <type>pom</type>
>                 <scope>import</scope>
>             </dependency>
>             <dependency>
>                 <groupId>org.apache.camel</groupId>
>                 <artifactId>camel-spring-boot-dependencies</artifactId>
>                 <version>xxx</version>
>                 <type>pom</type>
>                 <scope>import</scope>
>             </dependency>
>         </dependencies>
>     </dependencyManagement>
>     <dependencies>
>         <dependency>
>             <groupId>org.apache.camel</groupId>
>             <artifactId>camel-starter-docker</artifactId>
>             <!-- camel-spring-boot-starter-docker is a better (but longer) option,
according to the s.b. documentation -->
>         </dependency>
>         <!-- Others -->
>         <dependency>
>             <groupId>org.apache.camel</groupId>
>             <artifactId>camel-starter-http</artifactId>
>         </dependency>
>     </dependencies>
> </project>
> {code}
> As suggested by [~chirino], the creation of such starters (and of the bom) could be automated.
Rules for creating such artifacts will be (at least) the following:
> *0) Basic*
> The spring-boot-bom will be derived from _camel-parent_, with some exceptions to solve
particular issues. Most of the starters will just include a dependency on the artifact they
refer to.
> *1) Logging*
> Logging issues have been found during integration tests, but they will be solved on the
main artifacts (see CAMEL-10217). The starter generator will just check that logging implementation
are missing from the artifact to prevent conflicts with slf4j-logback (used by spring-boot-starter).
> *2) Transitive overrides*
> Using the current implementation (with _camel-parent_ in the BOM), whenever a component
requires a library that is different from the one declared in _camel-parent_, some hacks should
be done, because the definition in the BOM takes precedence.
> Eg. An user wants to use camel-jclouds, but instead of the pretty:
> {code:xml}
> <dependency>
>   <groupId>org.apache.camel</groupId>
>   <artifactId>camel-jclouds</artifactId>
> </dependency>
> {code}
> He will end up with the following declaration in his application pom:
> {code:xml}
> <dependency>
>   <groupId>org.apache.camel</groupId>
>   <artifactId>camel-jclouds</artifactId>
>   <exclusions>
>     <exclusion>
>       <groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
>       <artifactId>slf4j-log4j12</artifactId>
>     </exclusion>
>   </exclusions>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
>   <groupId></groupId>
>   <artifactId>guava</artifactId>
>   <version>16.0.1</version> <!-- To override, again, the BOM version -->
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
>   <groupId></groupId>
>   <artifactId>guice</artifactId>
>   <version>3.0</version> <!-- To override, again, the BOM version -->
> </dependency>
> {code}
> As a solution to this problem, if there are at least two components requiring eg. a different
version of guava, guava will not be included in the spring-boot bom, instead the specific
version will be enforced on each starter (for all components using guava).
> Of course, this will not prevent issues when two components requiring different versions
of guava will be used in the same user application. I think this issue cannot be avoided in
applications with a standard classloader.
> *3) API implementations*
> In many cases, spring-boot detects the presence of a particular api in the classpath
and expects an implementation is present. This happens for example with the bean validation
> {noformat}
> ***************************
> ***************************
> Description:
> The Bean Validation API is on the classpath but no implementation could be found
> Action:
> Add an implementation, such as Hibernate Validator, to the classpath
> {noformat}
> The starters will include eg. the Hibernate Validator each time it is required to start
the application.
> *4) Optional dependencies as variants*
> Starters are often used to provide a full stack for some higher level libraries/api.
> Eg. The JTA api can be provided in spring with three starters (as of 1.4.0):
> - spring-boot-starter-jta-atomikos
> - spring-boot-starter-jta-bitronix
> - spring-boot-starter-jta-narayana
> Each starter will include everything that is necessary in terms of libraries and auto-configuration
for the particular implementation.
> Having such an automated tool for generating poms, we could create starters like:
> - camel-starter-rest-netty
> - camel-starter-rest-jetty
> - camel-starter-rest-undertow
> Each one having everything needed to run routes described using rest dsl (auto-configuration
included. It will probably be developed on the main component).
> Similarly we can have:
> - camel-starter-jms
> - camel-starter-jms-jta
> The latter providing a preferred implementation and autoconfiguration (such as Narayana).
> *5) Tests*
> Each configuration will be checked by the already existing spring-boot integration tests.
Support will be added for executing specific tests related to the a particular starter configuration,
if needed.
> In case of dependencies enforced by both camel-parent and spring-boot (with different
versions), the _camel-spring-boot_ BOM will use the spring-boot version. Problems will be
highlighted by integration tests.
> I started this Jira mainly to check if this feature can improve the user experience and
if the points I highlighted are sound, before starting the implementation.
> Probably there are also other issues/use-cases that I didn't cover in my list.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message