Mailing-List: contact dev-help@streams.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@streams.incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of craigmcc@gmail.com designates
 209.85.217.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: craigmcc@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAL8syOa_OOUq2Fd-CGfKfXu6Jm=104YByrQd8M3pHJNKCOAkEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAENpzYUE2bdZKqRfe81zoY+zchsjWO+Rb56NoB+1ws=PR25F+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL8syOa_OOUq2Fd-CGfKfXu6Jm=104YByrQd8M3pHJNKCOAkEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:11:46 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CANgkmLC5k0a_ev-QKeCQu9hBaNbS0cJaYog0OdZrTpjw5fmjKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ApacheCon Recap & Next Steps
From: Craig McClanahan <craigmcc@apache.org>
To: dev@streams.incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04426b669a6d9504d7dab8d3

--f46d04426b669a6d9504d7dab8d3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Jason Letourneau
<jletourneau80@gmail.com>wrote:

> Glad you all made it back in one piece.
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Matt Franklin
> <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For all of you who missed it, Craig gave a nice intro into what we are
> > trying to accomplish with Streams at Apachecon [1].  At the conference
> > there was a fair bit of interest and what seemed to me like potential
> > alignment; however, there are some serious issues to discuss and work
> > to resolution.  The issues I heard are as follows:
> >
> > 1) Everyone is interested, few are engaged.
> >     There are quite a few people who could use this software, but
> > aside from Jason, we really haven't seen much activity in development
> > or architecture.
> >
> > 2) The current code is not easy to engage with
> >     We need to lay out tutorials on how to get started and discuss
> > general architecture and package structure
> >
>
> I'm not sure its the code so much as the project structure.  With
> flexibility and highly componetized (read extensible) architecture
> comes complexity.  If the vision is just being lightweight, OSGI can
> go away and some of the modules can be merged.  I was imagining an
> environment where hot-swapping implementations or adding new routes on
> a live server would be desirable.  With just WAR, scalable is still
> achievable (via messaging and reconfiguration), but that assumes one
> deployment type rather than maintaining flexibility around it out of
> the box. No strong opinion here, but it was fun to make it work for
> both.
>
> From a personal perspective, and not coming from any background in the
latest and greatest ESBish architectures (let alone OSGI), I found the
current architecture to be pretty mystifying.  Trying to find "beginner"
docs on ServiceMix or its component parts didn't help -- it almost seems
like there is a cabal of wizards who understand this stuff, and who don't
deign to deal with mere mortals :-).

We could actually be a pretty good nudge for these other projects to
improve their beginner level docs, if we at least showed how all the basic
pieces fit together, and documented some profiles of how to deploy the same
functionality in either a simple single node servlet environment or an
all-in multiple node environment based on the bus.

What I want from Apache Streams is a horizontally scalable platform, that
lets me do piecemeal upgrades to individual nodes without having to shut
down the entire service when I add new stuff.  I'm not so concerned about
the technologies we use to make this happen.  I am concerned that anyone
other than a wizard can understand how it works.

Craig

--f46d04426b669a6d9504d7dab8d3--