streams-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Letourneau <jletournea...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Switching Streams from Camel deployment to .war deployment
Date Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:23:26 GMT
So Danny in case it was lost in the ensuing transport discussion,
Camel abstracts the transport, so you don't have to care if its http
or whatever, only about the message format.  This is helpful if you
care about plugging in components that DO care about the transport of
course.  To answer your other questions, the downside to having the
components all work via http (and not using messaging/Camel) is that
everything immediately becomes point to point, which isn't a
performance issue in its own right but limits scaling to more than one
component being at the receiving end/fulfillment for instance as we've
been discussing as being optimal.

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Chris Geer <chris@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>
>
> Nice.  I was expecting RTFM, so thanks for catering to my laziness.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 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
>> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> >
>> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> >
>> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > >> > >> >
>> > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>

Mime
View raw message