Hi Aidan, I certainly agree with your first three points, the sample README files can all do with some improvement. As to renaming examples, I think that clarifying the README files may improve user understanding as to what is occuring in each demo. I know that in my own experiments with the 4.0 demos that I have found enabling an exchange listener useful to catch just what NMR communications are occuring (see NMR listeners in the NMR kit). I would suggest opening a JIRA improvement task in SMX4 for each of the README files you would like to improve for verbosity and clearity.
Cheers, Jamie http://icodebythesea.blogspot.com/ On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Aidan Hollinshead <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > As a relative newbie to ServiceMix 4, I was going through the examples and > saw a few things I thought could perhaps be improved, and I'd like to help > > 1. Write a top-level README in the examples directory that lists the demos > and what they do because it's hard to figure out just from directory names > where you should start. I'm assuming this would cover the examples that are > released. > > 2. Add a bit more explanatory information to the READMEs and a consistent > format, including an overview of what the demo does (what particular feature > or pattern it's demonstrating), what parts make up the example, and which > config files or code are particularly important to this example, then the > usual instructions on how to build and/or run the example. I know some of > the examples, for example do have some more explanation already on > servicemix.apache.org but that only applies to a couple. > > 3. Write READMEs for the examples that weren't in the 4.0.0.0 release but > are in SVN. > > There are some other ideas that are a bit more structural and would thus > have more side effects. I know some of the examples (bridge, camel & > cxf-wsdl-first) are carried over from SMX 3, while others are new. > > 1. Renaming the examples. It's not clear which demos use JBI vs OSGi. For > example 'camel' does but 'camel-nmr' doesn't, while 'camel-osgi' doesn't use > the NMR but uses OSGi properties. Would some of them benefit from renaming? > > 2. It seems to me, there may be some crossover between some of the examples, > but there may be subtle things about the demos I'm not picking up. This is > particularly the case with some of the examples that were in the 4.0.0 > release and those that are in subversion but didn't make it, e.g. cxf-nmr > and cxf-nmr-osgi. This might become more apparent when the purpose of each > demo is clearer. > > What do people think? > > Hoping to help, > > Aidan Hollinshead > >
