I'm thinking about the organisation strategy here. Below is a list of a few practical issues off the top of my head. For the people supporting the the marketplace idea, could you elaborate on how we'd handle these?
- Would marketplace components be sponsored/owned by committers only, or anyone is free to contribute? - What's the screening process when a new component is submitted? Or is there any? - What if a component is abandoned by its sponsor in the marketplace? - How do we supervise the quality of components? The quality of components since day 1 has been a big success factor of Camel so far. - Will the committer team stand responsible if a component simply doesn't work as advertised? - How would issues and tickets be tracked? In the ASF JIRA? - How would we align, organise, coordinate Camel releases with N component sponsors? Until now, the voice of community has been -1 to independent component versioning. So even if we open a Camel Marketplace, component versions would need to stay aligned. - Where would documentation be hosted? The number of components increasing to a level beyond our capacity is an undeniable sign that the Camel community is thriving. We should be thinking of expanding the Committer Team rather than outsourcing work to other communities and other approaches ;) Thanks! *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 12:30 PM, Christian Schneider < ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote: > I also think it would be a good idea to concentrate on core and a few > important components. The sheer number of components got a little out of > control recently. > So for example we could keep the 10 or 20 most important components in > camel and move the rest out to a marketplace. > > Christian > > Am 20.02.2013 11:37, schrieb Maruan Sahyoun: > > 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/<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://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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> > > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architect > Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com > >
