On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Ioannis Canellos <ioca...@gmail.com> wrote: > I prefer having all sources in java, however not accepting scala > contributions in the community doesn't seem right to me. > I'd say let's try to keep everything java, but if there is a good reason > for people using scala and we have a good number of committers willing to > work in scala a scala-components module doesn't sound bad to me. >
+1 I dont see much interrest in creating Scala based components for Camel, just because its Scala programming language. Though having a number of Camel components using Scala because they integrate with Scala based libraries is OKAY with me. Though if someone creates a new Camel component to integration with Facebook, then I would favor that being Java based. I guess what triggered this was that Stomp component that was Scala based, because it uses a Scala library for the STOMP communication. If I had a choice and there was a pure Java stomp client I would favor that over the Scala based. But I guess there is not, so I am okay with the camel-stomp being Scala based for now. The only concern for Scala based components is the bad backwards compatability Scala has. eg the Scala 2.9 vs 2.10 debacle. I think for Scala based components we cannot dual support both Scala 2.9 and 2.10 binary releases. And therefore they would be Scala 2.10 based for now. > > -- > *Ioannis Canellos* > * > > ** > Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com > ** > Twitter: iocanel > * -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- Red Hat, Inc. FuseSource is now part of Red Hat Email: cib...@redhat.com Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: davsclaus Blog: http://davsclaus.com Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
