+1 But it looks like not all of the camel components have been available on
the camel-quarkus. Would this be a problem ?

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 7:51 PM Luca Burgazzoli <lburgazz...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> When we started working on camel-k, we haven't found any runtime/framework
> that could cope with the type of workloads we had in mind for camel-k so we
> ended up rolling our own framework but later on the Quarkus project has
> started and that has changed a little the landscape as the Quarkus goal is
> to support the very same cloud native workload swe want to support so we
> have added support for Quarkus in camel-k.
>
> So as today we have two runtimes on which integrations can run:
> - our in-house one based on camel-main
> - a Quarkus based one that leverages the camel-quarkus project
>
> Here I'm proposing that after camel-k 1.0.0 we'll drop support for the
> in-house framework and focus our effort on making Quarkus the foundation
> for camel-k runtimes (the integrations) as:
>
> 1. Maintaining the two runtimes is becoming a challenge as a lot of
> features we want are already provided by Quarkus and to make the runtimes
> on par we need to develop the same set of features on our in-house
> framework (think about health checks, integration with tracing and
> monitoring, security, etc.). For the end-users it is also confusing as the
> two runtimes have a different set of configuration options so even if
> there's no difference between how routes are written using one or the other
> runtime is not completely transparent.
>
> 2. Quarkus offers faster startup and reduced memory footprint by moving
> some of the initialization at build time which copes perfectly with our
> camel-k design as we can make optimized images once and re-use them for a
> number of integrations.
>
> 3. Quarkus and the Camel Quarkus subproject can help us to leverage native
> compilation when possible which fits perfectly with the serverless workload
> we want camel-k to target.
>
>
> What do you think ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Luca Burgazzoli
>

Reply via email to