I have to say I kinda agree with this.
We could mark a component as possibly "less quickly patched",
but nixing contributions on a component level seems kinda wrong to me...
On Feb 7, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Henryk Konsek <hekon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Because Camel and Camel-Extra are Java based projects, I don't think we
>> should integrate this component (even if it's a cool component for Scala
>> guys).
>
> I'm afraid I must disagree :) .
>
> We support Scala as the 1st class citizen DSL language for Camel and I
> don't see any reason why we should exclude components using Scala
> libraries.
>
> Also from the end-user point of view Scala is just an another library.
> I could create the following route in Java DSL and I would not be even
> aware that I'm using Scala under the hood. For example:
> from("jms:queue").to("someScalaComponent:foo")
>
> The core of the Camel and the Java-related components are written in
> Java, but in my humble opinion there is no reason we shouldn't provide
> components written in Scala, as long as the subject of the component
> is also written in Scala.
>
> Maybe we could settle some "official policy" regarding Scala-related
> code for Camel?
>
> --
> Henryk Konsek
> http://henryk-konsek.blogspot.com
