well IMHO this would also address the release lifecycle question. That part of the discussion initiated the idea. If there are enough people around to maintain the components that's great. On the other hand are there also enough people around to move Camel 3.0 forward AND maintain all components? Bottom line from my outsiders perspective following your discussions was that there are too many things to be done within a certain period of time. I might be wrong though.
Maruan Sahyoun Am 20.02.2013 um 11:26 schrieb Raul Kripalani <r...@evosent.com>: > Hi, > > I don't think a marketplace and surrendering responsibility of components > helps solve the problem we are discussing. > > We don't have an ownership/responsibility/authorship issue: it's a release > lifecycle discussion. How do we deliver component fixes to the community > quickly? Surrendering them doesn't seem to be the solution. Truth is that > we do have enough capacity in the Camel project to maintain the components > we host. As proof, most (sensible) component tickets are resolved within 1 > week of their creation; some in just hours. > > BTW - we usually encourage users to donate their custom components to the > Camel project, if they use ASL-compatible libraries. For the rest, there's > already a marketplace at camel-extra [1] that hosts non-ASL compatible > components. > > Regards, > > [1] http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/camel-extra/ > > *Raúl Kripalani* > Apache Camel Committer > Enterprise Architect, Program Manager, Open Source Integration specialist > http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani > http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk <http://twitter.com/raulvk> > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Maruan Sahyoun <sahy...@fileaffairs.de>wrote: > >> you nailed it. The idea of the marketplace is to give up responsibility. >> Apache Camel is responsible for the foundation (software, infrastructure, >> procedures). The component developer has responsibility for the component. >> >> Maruan Sahyoun >> >> Am 20.02.2013 um 10:19 schrieb Christian Schneider < >> ch...@die-schneider.net>: >> >>> The idea of a common process and rules but separate owners for the >>> components sounds good. We would have to discuss / agree on the details >>> of course. This would then of course also imply that the camel community >>> would not officially support the marketplace components. So rather each >>> component would be supported by an individual group. >>> >>> Christian >>> >>> On 20.02.2013 10:04, Maruan Sahyoun wrote: >>>> a discussion/decision how to handle components is independent of a >> stable and thin core. I mentioned it only to have the 'layers' complete. >> The points you are making are very valid and as has been proven by others >> they can be addressed. What I wanted to introduce is the idea of not being >> responsible for all components themselves. Providing the 'marketplace' and >> procedures associated with it on the other hand should be handled by the >> project. This way Apache Camel will provide the foundation from a coding as >> well as infrastructure/terms and procedures perspective. >>>> >>>> I think jQuery is a good example of how that could be done >> http://plugins.jquery.com/ . Take a look at the submenus >>>> • Naming Your Plugin >>>> • Publishing Your Plugin >>>> • Package Manifest >>>> >>>> Kind regards >>>> >>>> Maruan Sahyoun >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Christian Schneider >>> http://www.liquid-reality.de >>> >>> Open Source Architect >>> http://www.talend.com >>> >> >>
