Maruan,
Actually I think you're spot on, and I shared some of these thoughts for
a good while. I believe it's just a matter of time for others to reach
the same conclusion.
My $0.02,
Hadrian
On 02/20/2013 05:37 AM, Maruan Sahyoun wrote:
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
