Our few ideas: * whether we just use the camel language for our actions (http://camel.apache.org/components.html) * Whether we restrict the camel components that are necessary * What about the old actions - what if they are duplicates to camel components * Do we just use akka camel integration in actions or at a deeper level as well. * There are camel components that read as well as write (camel-mail) - what do we with those?
D. On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: > For those who might not remember, I've had some ideas about using the > akka-camel module some time ago: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-esme-dev/201011.mbox/%[email protected]%3E > > It makes sense, since Camel provides solutions to various integration > scenarios, which is one of the use cases for ESME. > > I've also not been in a hurry XMPP using the Lift library, because if > we use the Akka route, we will get this for free. > > Let me take some time to think about how this can fit into ESME. If > there are no other major features planned for 1.4- why not? > > Cheers, > Vassil > > > On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> wrote: >> @vassil - I just saw your tweet about camel, akka and esme. What >> about planning that feature for the 1.4 release? I've already pinged >> Vladimir about it as well. What about splitting the task between you >> two? >> >> We will be hopefully be finished with the 1.3 release soon and then we >> can start on the 1.4 >> >> D. >> >> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The question is actually very valid, since sending messages is only >>> part of the problem- the message handler needs to be implemented as >>> well as support for linking, etc. >>> >>> But yes, they're very compatible, since David Pollak and Jonas Boner >>> worked together on a common actor interface, so it should be purely >>> mechanical replacement (haven't tried to dig into details however) >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> Question: Are Lift actors and Akka actors compatible? So, for example, >>>> could >>>> we do this incrementally, replacing the Distributor with Akka actors first >>>> and then working out to the other actors? >>>> >>>> Ethan >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Folks, >>>>> >>>>> For a while I've been thinking about integrating Akka >>>>> (http://akkasource.org/) into ESME. Akka is a library for concurrency, >>>>> fault-tolerance and remoting and actors are one of its most important >>>>> components. The advantages of using Akka are: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Easy remoting- it's trivial to make an actor remote >>>>> (http://doc.akkasource.org/remote-actors-java). This might help with >>>>> federation/clustering in the future. >>>>> 2. Akka has nice Camel integration (http://doc.akkasource.org/camel). >>>>> Camel has a lot of endpoint components, which are conspicuously >>>>> similar in intent to our actions: >>>>> (http://camel.apache.org/components.html). If we replace our actions >>>>> with Camel components, we will have a ready DSL for dozens of actions >>>>> at little extra effort. For instance, XMPP support is supposed to >>>>> become trivial (at least at first glance). >>>>> >>>>> The upside is that it should be fairly ealy to replace Lift actors >>>>> with Akka actors where (and if) needed. The downside is having another >>>>> library dependency- but we also won't need to implement and maintain >>>>> all the different action types. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? I will let you know how this idea matures and how >>>>> my research goes. >>>>> Vassil >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/vdichev >>> Blog: http://speaking-my-language.blogspot.com >>> >> >
