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: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAENpzYXjrutYHsxP+K-GtjO++vhyKYM9+Gay+T+L2PPQ34WfTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <SNT149-W9255D3543C9374C1010DCB8A090@phx.gbl>
	<SNT149-W17DBFEA90CE093DF3F90F88A090@phx.gbl>
	<CAENpzYWdGg4xK2Ey+CeFqV2jC5DZWyM8ocRX03Yn7o+p9FnoEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT149-W478477E9CE78116FB1F0188A0A0@phx.gbl>
	<CAL8syObZtmfDBtznouz5k+bEgcG55=W9k8KvKtQBQVNHzNsTBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT149-W4688D1837ED8A61183B6278A0A0@phx.gbl>
	<CAL8syOadWnYXMOc3X6ooU-c7Wanjo98YiNHaOU2PC9S5+Bou8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT149-W3466D775B64424835F79A38A0A0@phx.gbl>
	<CAL8syOYRWHdQvHo_mysSe01vdNAOpvypTe9dBZycJ4J3w=1x+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT149-W6947AB6A21214358E253618A0B0@phx.gbl>
	<SNT149-W607E0AEEE5380DED910ABE8A0B0@phx.gbl>
	<CAL8syOa2JQ0Lc4ztRxDBo5ecVFLD3kBq15wAcDhVmtMNc+UAcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFNO4HhB0QbDOYHsbGTL=rPRnyBzActW4gcy3g3N+TxMJT1n4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<SNT149-W51AB5CB1F1F30F2D3098588A0B0@phx.gbl>
	<CAENpzYUBp71UGwK8Gw5bHL5o91xJOiq9faFby+Ww2DUO3jcYrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFNO4HgnCU2XFHe-03fNo15XnPw0dWr5OBnK26cpjfpq-kZT_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAENpzYXjrutYHsxP+K-GtjO++vhyKYM9+Gay+T+L2PPQ34WfTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:34:55 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAFNO4Hi6DV6teLBnWPFhh=ex+6r-CFLizSqQOVa6BSJkr8yDeA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Switching Streams from Camel deployment to .war
 deployment
From: Chris Geer <chris@cxtsoftware.com>
To: "dev@streams.incubator.apache.org" <dev@streams.incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec529985f8ec03104ea10385c

--bcaec529985f8ec03104ea10385c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Chris Geer <chris@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Danny Sullivan <
> dsullivan7@hotmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm not quite following this, so I apologize. What I'm trying to do
> is
> > > > programmatically make a request to a jar running on a separate jvm
> and
> > > get
> > > > the response from that call all within the same method. Similar to
> this
> > > > http request:
> > > >
> > > > HttpGet httpget = new HttpGet();
> > > >
> > > > httpget.setURI(new URI("www.streams-persistence.com"));
> > > >
> > > > CloseableHttpResponse response = httpclient.execute(httpget);
> > > >
> > > > //do stuff with the response...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I imagine that this would translate to something in Camel similar to
> > > this:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <route>
> > > >
> > > > <from uri="bean:subscriberService?method=getAllSubscribers"/>
> > > >
> > > > <inOut
> > > >
> > >
> >
> uri="addressToStreamsPersistenceJar?method=selectAllSubscribersFromDatabase"/>
> > > >
> > > > </route>
> > > >
> > >
> > > Camel uses AMQP as a messaging system so that you don't have to create
> > HTTP
> > > requests between sources, though it is possible to do so.  In Storm, we
> > > usually try to use a buffer system like Kafka to do the same.
> > >
> >
> > Camel can use AMQP through ActiveMQ.
> >
> >
> Can being the operative word.  I haven't done much with Camel.  What other
> transports are available.
>
> OpenWire (native ActiveMQ)
AMQP
STOMP
HTTP (can be a server or client)
Mail
Amazon SQS
XMPP
....hundred or so more

http://camel.apache.org/components.html

>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But it is unclear what the actual implementation would be.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This actually brings me to another suggestion. Would there be a big
> > > > performance impact to have communication between the software
> > components
> > > > occur between http? Say the 5 software components I outlined earlier
> > were
> > > > packaged as 5 separate wars. These wars could communicate with each
> > other
> > > > via get a post requests. This sounds unconventional offhand so I'd
> like
> > > to
> > > > hear some thoughts on it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It is most certainly possible, but IMO probably not the best option for
> > > success.  Protocols like PubSubHubbub use HTTP for a message transport.
> > >
> > >
> > > > -Danny
> > > >
> > > > > Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:28:41 -0700
> > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Switching Streams from Camel deployment to
> > .war
> > > > deployment
> > > > > From: chris@cxtsoftware.com
> > > > > To: dev@streams.incubator.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > Or Content Enricher [2]
> > > > >
> > > > > [2] http://camel.apache.org/content-enricher.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Jason Letourneau
> > > > > <jletourneau80@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > check out the link here[1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]http://camel.apache.org/request-reply.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Danny Sullivan <
> > > > dsullivan7@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > I have a quick Camel question that I arrived at in the
> > > > implementation of
> > > > > > these new components:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lets say I have a method in streams-activity.jar that needs all
> > > > > > subscribers in the database. This would require a call to the
> > > > > > streams-persistence.jar. So far, I've seen camel used mostly for
> > > > passing
> > > > > > data through the application, but not for making a single
> > > > request-reponse
> > > > > > from within a method. How can I use Camel to get a list of all
> > > > subscribers
> > > > > > in the streams-persistence.jar from the streams-activity.jar?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> From: dsullivan7@hotmail.com
> > > > > > >> To: dev@streams.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > >> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Switching Streams from Camel deployment
> > to
> > > > .war
> > > > > > deployment
> > > > > > >> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:40:44 -0400
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Excellent, I'll write up something as a proof of concept and
> we
> > > can
> > > > > > discuss further to make sure everything is vanilla.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:01:28 -0400
> > > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Switching Streams from Camel
> deployment
> > > to
> > > > > > .war deployment
> > > > > > >> > From: jletourneau80@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > To: dev@streams.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > That sounds pretty promising to me.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Danny Sullivan <
> > > > > > dsullivan7@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > Thanks for the feedback. You have an interesting point
> about
> > > the
> > > > > > url linking to a separate processing space. Let me tie my answer
> > into
> > > > your
> > > > > > last question about "advocating for the simplicity at
> registration
> > to
> > > > give
> > > > > > up flexibility at registration, but retaining the inner "guts" of
> > > > > > EIP/messaging". Consider a new architecture:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > streams-web.war: single entry point to application, but
> > > > functions
> > > > > > ONLY as an entry point. From here Camel routes the incoming
> > requests
> > > > to 4
> > > > > > separate jarssubscriber-registration.jar: subscriber registration
> > > > > > publisher-registration.jar: publisher registrationactivity.jar:
> > > returns
> > > > > > activity (also contains subscriber warehouse and storm activity
> > > > > > aggregator)publish.jar: publishes activitystreams-cassandra.jar:
> > the
> > > > above
> > > > > > 4 jars would all have a hook into this jar which would function
> as
> > a
> > > > hook
> > > > > > onto the database. Each jar would have camel route output to this
> > > jar.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > In this implementation, Camel would no longer be the entry
> > and
> > > > exit
> > > > > > point of a client to the application, but would handle the
> > > > communication
> > > > > > between components. The flow of activity through the application
> > > would
> > > > be
> > > > > > method based in each jar. This would allow deployment on up to 6
> > > > different
> > > > > > process spaces. However, this does not address that there is a
> > single
> > > > > > server entry point, but I'm not sure if it was a concern in the
> > first
> > > > place.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > My argument, at its basis, is that we should move away
> from
> > > > using
> > > > > > Camel as the entry point to the application. I would be happy to
> > > > maintain
> > > > > > messaging between components.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:32:55 -0400
> > > > > > >> > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Switching Streams from Camel
> > > deployment
> > > > to
> > > > > > .war deployment
> > > > > > >> > >> From: jletourneau80@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > >> To: dev@streams.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >> An interesting use case that I am holding onto is the
> > ability
> > > > for
> > > > > > >> > >> publishers to register via a single URL (registration
> > > > endpoint),
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> > >> be sent a URL back to post to a different process space
> for
> > > > actual
> > > > > > >> > >> publishing.  The same is true on the subscriber front.
> > > >  Currently,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > >> Camel/EIP infrastructure abstracts this because different
> > > > > > components
> > > > > > >> > >> deployed in different process spaces handling the route
> > > > creation
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > >> > >> just be bolted onto a running Streams instance without
> new
> > > > > > subs/pubs
> > > > > > >> > >> behaving any differently than existing.  This seems to
> be a
> > > > > > >> > >> potentially critical scaling point.  Is there a way to do
> > > this
> > > > with
> > > > > > >> > >> the Spring solution?
> > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >> The persistence point is a good one, though I would
> > classify
> > > > that
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > >> "not implemented" vs "not possible" (not that you were).
> > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >> I'm not married to Camel, I just like the EIP approach to
> > > > building
> > > > > > >> > >> something that is ultimately a messaging system.  There
> are
> > > > known
> > > > > > >> > >> patterns that solve at least a subset of the problems
> > Streams
> > > > is
> > > > > > >> > >> trying to solve and implementations that can handle the
> > load
> > > > and
> > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > >> > >> reiterate flexibility == complexity almost always.
> > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >> It comes right back to the central question: Do you want
> > > > > > flexibility
> > > > > > >> > >> or simplicity?  It doesn't have to be black and white
> > either
> > > I
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > >> > >> think...
> > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >> More pointedly: Where should we give up flexibility for
> > > > > > simplicity?  I
> > > > > > >> > >> read that Danny is advocating for the simplicity at
> > > > registration to
> > > > > > >> > >> give up flexibility at registration, but retaining the
> > inner
> > > > > > "guts" of
> > > > > > >> > >> EIP/messaging?  Thoughts?
> > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Danny Sullivan <
> > > > > > dsullivan7@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >> > My argument is not for the IoC pattern as that can be
> > (and
> > > > has
> > > > > > been) implemented alongside Camel. My main argument is that the
> > > syntax
> > > > at
> > > > > > the entry point is not only familiar but much simpler. This
> > wouldn't
> > > > be a
> > > > > > very strong argument if the Camel implementation wasn't much more
> > > > > > complicated but I feel that it is the case. Also, looking toward
> > the
> > > > > > future, if the server is restarted, in-routes are lost in Camel.
> > The
> > > > way to
> > > > > > curb this is to persist the dynamic routes that Camel creates,
> and
> > > > then on
> > > > > > start up pull every one of these routes and recreate a dynamic
> > route
> > > > for
> > > > > > each one. Not only is this much easier to implement using the
> > Spring
> > > > web
> > > > > > implementation, but it already has been implemented and you can
> try
> > > it
> > > > by
> > > > > > checking out the webservice branch, registering a subscriber,
> > > > restarting
> > > > > > tomcat, and using the same url you had before. This will allow
> > > > subscribers
> > > > > > to hang on to their urls once they register. (the same is true
> for
> > > > > > publishers: you can post via the same url after restarting
> tomcat)
> > > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >> >> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:00:21 -0400
> > > > > > >> > >> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Switching Streams from Camel
> > > > deployment
> > > > > > to .war deployment
> > > > > > >> > >> >> From: jletourneau80@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > >> >> To: dev@streams.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > >> > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > >> >> To be fair, while the current implementation is
> heavily
> > > > > > camel-based,
> > > > > > >> > >> >> all of the interfaces related to Streams functionality
> > are
> > > > not.
> > > > > >  The
> > > > > > >> > >> >> current model maps to what Matt has outlined in my
> > > opinion,
> > > > > > though
> > > > > > >> > >> >> packing names etc. probably don't follow that exact
> > > pattern.
> > > > > > >> > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > >> >> With regards to the complexity and different
> components
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > >> >> registration process, this was a cut at the
> abstraction
> > > > based
> > > > > > on the
> > > > > > >> > >> >> assumption that different implementations may be
> plugged
> > > in
> > > > and
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > >> >> fact may live on different processor space (ie. a
> > polling
> > > > > > publisher vs
> > > > > > >> > >> >> a push publisher may be instantiated on different
> > servers
> > > > but
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > >> >> registration URL is staticly defined).
> > > > > > >> > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > >> >> Is the main argument I am seeing for Spring  the
> > > > familiarity of
> > > > > > its
> > > > > > >> > >> >> IoC pattern implementation and syntax at the entry
> > point?
> > > > > > >> > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > >> >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Danny Sullivan <
> > > > > > dsullivan7@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >> >> > Could you clarify whether the same entry points
> would
> > > > exist
> > > > > > for the camel implementation of the core (implementing the
> > "process"
> > > > > > method/ using a DynammicRouteBuilder) or would the webservice be
> > the
> > > > sole
> > > > > > entry point to Streams and after it enters would it hand it off
> to
> > > > Camel?
> > > > > > And what would be the entry point for the Storm implementation?
> > > > > > >> > >> >> > -Danny
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:13:04 -0400
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Switching Streams from Camel
> > > > > > deployment to .war deployment
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> From: m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> To: dev@streams.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Danny Sullivan <
> > > > > > dsullivan7@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > My case for switching from OSGi is for simplicity
> > in
> > > > > > design. To follow the
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > path of an activity through Streams in the
> > > webservice,
> > > > > > there is one main
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > things the developer needs to understand:
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > The @RequestMapping annotation specifies the HTTP
> > > entry
> > > > > > point
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > There are 4 @RequestMapping annotations that
> > > > correspond to
> > > > > > each of the 4
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > ways a user enters the application: registering a
> > > > > > publisher, registering a
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > subscriber, publishing activity, and getting an
> > > > activity
> > > > > > stream. Where
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > these are located in the source code can be found
> > by
> > > > > > searching for the
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > paths specified in the documentation (search for
> > > > > > "/publisherRegister",
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > "/subscriberRegister", "/publishActivity",
> > > > "/getActivity"
> > > > > > which will all
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > lead you to StreamsWebController.java). From the
> > > > methods
> > > > > > that process
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > requests, the flow through the application is
> > through
> > > > > > methods which can be
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > understood by most Java programmers.
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > The flow of activities through the current trunk
> > > > branch is
> > > > > > understood as
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > follows:
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > The string "/publisher/register" (the entry point
> > to
> > > > > > register a publisher
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > specified in the documentation) is the value of
> the
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > consumer.registrationEndpoint property defined in
> > > > > > streams.propertiesThe
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > camelContext.xml specifies an endpoint with the
> id
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > consumerRegistrationEndpoint to have a uri equal
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > propertyThe
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > consumerRegistrationEndpoint routes from uri
> > > > > > direct:publisher register with
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > the bean activityRegistrationProcessor nested in
> > > > between
> > > > > > the routeThe
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > streams-eip-applicationContext contains a bean
> with
> > > > the id
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > activityRegistrationProcessor created for the
> class
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > ActivityPublisherRegistrationProcessorThe
> exchange
> > > will
> > > > > > enter the "process"
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > method of the class
> > > > > > ActivityPublisherRegisitrationProcessor and that this
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > is because this class implements the "Processor"
> > > > interface
> > > > > > provided by
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > CamelThe direct:add-publisher-route takes the
> > > exchange
> > > > > > output from the
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > "process" method and routes it to the
> > > > > > activityRegistrationProcessor
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > "register" method. The bean
> > > > activityRegistrationProcessor
> > > > > > is defined in the
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > streams-eip-osgi-component-import.xmlThe output
> > from
> > > > this
> > > > > > method is then
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > sent to the "createNewRouteForConsumer" method of
> > > > > > activityConsumerRouter.
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > This method creates a new route for the newly
> > > > registered
> > > > > > publisher using
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > the private static final class
> > > > DynamicConsumerRouteBuilder
> > > > > > which is
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > required to extend RouteBuilder which is provided
> > by
> > > > > > Camel. This
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > DynamicConsumerRouteBuilder contains several
> > methods:
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > getConsumerReceiveMethod() (which corresponds to
> > > @Value
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > ${consumer.receiveMethod} which corresponds to
> > > > "receive"),
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > getConsumerSplitMethod() (@Value
> > > > > > ${consumer.splitMethod},"split"), and
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > getConsumerActivityQUri() (@Value
> > > > ${consumerActivityQUri},
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > "direct:activityQ"). This is different than the
> > > > > > camelContext.xml in that
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > the route is being created programmatically. What
> > > this
> > > > is
> > > > > > doing is routing
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > input from the inroute url (which Camel does
> > > > automatically
> > > > > > through the
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > configure method which is required to be
> > overridden),
> > > > to
> > > > > > the "receive"
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > method of ActivityConsumer, then to the "split"
> > > method
> > > > of
> > > > > > ActivityConsumer,
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > and then to the "direct:activityQ" which if you
> > look
> > > > back
> > > > > > in the
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > camelContext.xml routes to the
> > > > "activemq:queue:activities"
> > > > > > which then
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > routes to "receiveExchange"
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > This is the process to register a publisher. The
> > > > process
> > > > > > for registering a
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > subscriber is relatively the same though it
> > involves
> > > > > > separate classes with
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > their own private static final RouteBuilder
> class.
> > > > From my
> > > > > > perspective, the
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > two most difficult things with setting this
> project
> > > up
> > > > > > were understanding
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > that the "process" method of the class that
> > > implements
> > > > > > "Processor" is the
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > entry point and the DynamicConsumerRouteBuilder
> > > creates
> > > > > > the second entry
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > point (The 5th and last points). This made the
> > > project
> > > > > > very, VERY hard to
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > understand.
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > In addition to simplicity of design, the mvn
> clean
> > > > install
> > > > > > of the web
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > service project is much faster and small scale
> > > activity
> > > > > > publishing is also
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > faster (see my email about load testing). These
> are
> > > > minor
> > > > > > points though as
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > compilation has no effect on deployment. OSGi
> does
> > > add
> > > > the
> > > > > > benefit of
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > modularized programming which is valuable,
> though I
> > > > think
> > > > > > the added
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > complexity of Camel merits moving the project
> away
> > > from
> > > > > > this paradigm.
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> I agree that the project is pretty difficult to
> > > > understand
> > > > > > ATM.  I think
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> what we need to do is think about what the
> > > > responsibilities
> > > > > > of the code are
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> and allow for different implementations that are
> not
> > so
> > > > > > tightly coupled as
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> they are now.  For instance, having worked with
> Storm
> > > to
> > > > > > ingest millions of
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> activities a day, I personally would like to see
> > > streams
> > > > be
> > > > > > responsible for
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> defining an over-arching orchestration model that
> can
> > > be
> > > > > > implemented within
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> a single war or on top of a distributed system.
>  This
> > > > would
> > > > > > look something
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> like the follows:
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> |__ Streams-Core  (Base classes, interfaces,
> > utilities,
> > > > > > extensions, etc)
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> |
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> |__ Streams-Storm (Storm implementation of the
> core)
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> |
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> |__ Streams-Camel (Camel implementation of the
> core)
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> |
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> |__ Streams-WS (Web service implementation)
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >>
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > Danny
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > From: dsullivan7@hotmail.com
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > To: dev@streams.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > Subject: [DISCUSS] Switching Streams from Camel
> > > > > > deployment to .war
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > deployment
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:07:39 -0400
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > > The discussion thread for switching Streams
> from
> > > > > > Camel/osgi/Servicemix
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > to a single .war deployment
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--bcaec529985f8ec03104ea10385c--