What would tomcat bring 'extra' to the mix?

On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Charles Moulliard wrote:

> Hi JB,
> 
> Many thanks for your feedback. As jetty is an important component in
> camel and servicemix, I'm not quite sure that it makes sense to remove
> it for the moment while camel-tomcat and servicemix-http are not
> available.
> 
> We can also design the product using jetty and Apache HTTP Server:
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/Jetty/Tutorial/Apache
> So we don't need to design new components. Apache HTTP Server is use
> in plenty projects where Websphere AS is deployed and WAR file can be
> deployed in Jetty :
> http://www.enavigo.com/2008/08/29/deploying-a-web-application-to-jetty/.
> As a wrapper exist, it can be started as a Service on Windows, ...
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Charles Moulliard
> 
> Senior Enterprise Architect (J2EE, .NET, SOA)
> Apache Camel Committer
> 
> *******************************************************************
> - Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com
> - Twitter : http://twitter.com/cmoulliard
> - Linkedlin : http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlesmoulliard
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
>> Hi Charles,
>> 
>> as already discussed together, the idea looks very interesting to me.
>> 
>> By packaging Tomcat, Camel, ODE and JBI components in ServiceMix (and of
>> course working on the documentation :)), we can provide a wide scope and
>> powerful ESB. Combining with the OSGi/Karaf give us a very flexible and
>> modern platform.
>> 
>> Tomcat can be an interesting alternative to Jetty to in components (there is
>> some work to migrate).
>> 
>> Definetely +1 for me.
>> 
>> Regards
>> JB
>> 
>> Charles Moulliard wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> ServiceMix EAI. The name should be probably changed but the idea
>>> having an Enterprise Integration Server is to combine the strength of
>>> the ServiceMix ESB server and Routing Engine with Tomcat to offer a
>>> platform where J2EE applications can also be deployed.
>>> 
>>> Why : Many clients are still designing and developing their projects
>>> as J2EE applications which are deployed as WAR or EAR in an
>>> Application Server. People in charge of the infrastructure have skills
>>> and competences to manage such J2EE applications. When they have to
>>> manage a new kind of server like ServiceMix, they are more reluctant
>>> as they have less skills and return of experience. But if we can
>>> propose a packaged version of Tomcat where ServiceMix is already
>>> deployed, they will accept. We can also say the same thing for the
>>> development team because the clients have invest since more than a
>>> decade in Java/Web developers + Spring recently.
>>> 
>>> The other advantage that I see also concerning this product is that we
>>> can propose to the clients an environment where there applications can
>>> be easily load-balanced, services could be deployed as bundles and
>>> accessed from J2EE application using OSGI service (like IBM WebSphere
>>> does - see Aries project for that and WAB). In fact, we can propose an
>>> Open Source SOA solution leveraging of the stregnth of Application
>>> Server World, OSGI modularity, Messaging Bus, Routing, ... Combining
>>> with REST/WebService, ... who can inter-operate with any other
>>> existing
>>> system. Loadbalancing is a key success factor in the architecture when
>>> we have to process thousands of requests quickly and when we have to
>>> distribute the work load between different servers (= cloud
>>> computing).
>>> 
>>> What do you think about that ?
>>> 
>>> Charles Moulliard
>>> 
>>> Senior Enterprise Architect (J2EE, .NET, SOA)
>>> Apache Camel Committer
>>> 
>>> *******************************************************************
>>> - Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com
>>> - Twitter : http://twitter.com/cmoulliard
>>> - Linkedlin : http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlesmoulliard
>> 

Johan Edstrom

[email protected]

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, 
deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759





Reply via email to