cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Benson Margulies" <>
Subject Re: Concerns about the Camel / CXF documentation
Date Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:26:58 GMT
My question is dumber. If Camel, a part of Apache, is a superior
comestible for this purpose, should we consider decommissioning or
deprecating the existing CXF JMS in favor of just using it?

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 6:15 AM, Christian Schneider
<> wrote:
> Glen Mazza schrieb:
>> Christian,
>> I have a few concerns about your write up on using Camel as a JMS
>> alternative with CXF[1]:
>> 1.)  I don't understand why you are duplicating your blog entry on a CXF
>> confluence page.  Can't you just keep your blog entry up-to-date with your
>> link to it from our articles[2] page (and perhaps a few sentences on our
>> JMS
>> page linking to it, for those who miss the articles page)?  Your article
>> looks nicer on your blog anyway than it does with Confluence formatting.
> Hi Glen,
> I also use confluence on my blog. So the duplication effort is at least
> quite small. The reason why I duplicated the content is that I on the one
> hand wanted
> to really contribute the article to cxf so anyone on the wiki can improve it
> later. On the other hand I wanted to establish my blog. If I only wrote the
> article on my
> blog no one would be able to do modifications beside myself. If I only had
> written the article on the Wiki I could not establish my blog. Shame on me
> for using CXF for this ;-) I can cut the link if you think it is inadequate.
> Btw. if the article looks nicer on my blog we could perhaps improve the
> design of the cxf confluence pages ;-)
>> 2.)  The quality of the writing on the Confluence page is not very
>> clean--it
>> hasn't been spell-checked, capitalization is frequently off ("apache
>> camel"
>> instead of "Apache Camel"), detracting from the CXF documentation as a
>> whole, and the tone reads too informally.  Also, you have too many
>> references to specific developers and regular usage of the first-person
>> "I"--it is written like a blog entry instead of actual system
>> documentation. We really don't have time to be cleaning this documentation
>> up, you need to
>> proofread more carefully.
> That´s why I started the article on my blog and announced it on the mailing
> list. I hoped that some of these problems would be found before I added the
> article to the wiki.
> But I got no response on the list so I added the article a day later. I will
> try to improve the style and naming schemes today if that is ok.
>> I write blog entries and link them to the articles page, and I also update
>> the CXF system documentation (sometimes linking to a blog entry, either
>> mine
>> or others).  But the writing styles are different, and the types of things
>> you include are different.  In particular, you are tying your Confluence
>> article too much to yourself, but Confluence pages are for any team member
>> to edit, and are normally written without reference to any particular
>> author.
> Thanks for the hints about the style. I will try to do this better in the
> future. Perhaps it is a good idea to
> write a howto on the project page in a neutral style. Then I could pack an
> announcement to the howto together with my personal opinions on my blog in a
> personal style. So the two
> would be separated nicely. I think I still have to learn a bit aboutt
> blogging ;-)
>> 3.)  The tone of the documentation would appear to make it a better
>> candidate on the Camel site rather than the CXF one, for two reasons.
>>  (And
>> I'm sure James Strachan would be happy to give you a place to write
>> articles.)  For one thing, the criticisms of the CXF product, as in your
>> entry paragraphs, is unnatural within CXF documentation.
> You are right. I think it would be better to add the Howto to the Camel site
> and link it from CXF Howtos. I can move the article.
> The problem with the current Camel site is that you almost do not find the
> Camel CXF Transport although it is
> the better solution than the CXF component. For me the main idea behind
> publishing this article was that I had many problems configuring
> JMS for CXF and that the Camel integration really helped. So I hope to help
> others with configuring JMS. If I would only add the article to the Camel
> Wiki
> the CXF users who do not need Camel but have problems with JMS would not
> find it.
> As a second intention I would like to help improve the CXF JMS config and
> hope that the style Camel uses can be a good pattern for an improved native
> config for CXF.
>> Quote:  "Configuring JMS in Apache CXF is possible but not really easy or
>> nice. This article shows how to use Apache Camel to provide a better JMS
>> Transport for CXF...JMS configuration in Apache CXF is possible but the
>> configuration is not very flexible and quite error prone. In CXF you have
>> to
>> configure a JMSConduit or a JMSDestination for each webservice. The
>> connection between Conduit and the Service proxy is the endpoint name
>> which
>> looks like "{http://service.test\}HelloWorldPort.jms-conduit". As this
>> name
>> is never explicitly configured elsewhere it is quite probable that you
>> misspell the name. If this happens then the JMS Transport just does not
>> work. There is no good error reporting to show you what you did wrong."
>> Pointing out the minuses of a software product, such as CXF, is perfectly
>> acceptable, but not on the CXF's product's page itself--this should with
>> the
>> Camel project, where you are explaining an alternative.  That's where you
>> establish the contrast, the criticisms that you're finding with CXF.
>>  While
>> you can still link to alternative and better solutions from the CXF site
>> (and even say they're better), the self-criticism part directly within the
>> system documentation seems strange.
> As mentioned above I hope to help people with JMS problems in the short run
> and help improve CXF JMS
> in the long run. Sorry if this criticism is too harsh. Perhaps it suites
> better when I place the article on the Camel wiki.
> I can also try to be a little less harsh in the criticism. The only reason
> why I wrote this passage anyway was to motivate
> why you should use a separate product to configure CXF JMS. My intention is
> in no way to move people to Camel or something.
> I only hope to help the users of CXF and improve CXF.
>> For example, if I want to suggest where Maven is better than Apache Ant
>> for
>> building software, those technical articles (and legitimate criticisms) go
>> on the Maven website ("Apache Ant is good for many things, but falls short
>> in these project-building aspects...), not on the Ant website.  It is
>> unusual to ask team members to maintain documentation criticizing their
>> project.  For the second reason, Camel embeds CXF--not vice-versa; for
>> that reason,
>> perhaps placement on the Camel site would appear more appropriate, with
>> just
>> links from CXF.
> I understand. So moving the article to Camel is a good idea. Is it ok to
> link to the Camel article from the Wiki though?
> Btw. What do you think about improving the JMS config for CXF? Would you
> think the style from Camel I showed is good? I really like
> the idea to choose the JMS connection in the address rather than in a
> separate conduit definition. I also think it´s great to use Spring
> internally to
> make use of their transaction management. The last thing I liked is
> refrencing the ConnectionFactory as a bean.
> Best regards
> Christian
> --
> Christian Schneider
> ---
View raw message