I don't think I'd necessarily religiously say one or the other. The traditional NMR is 100% xml, the NMR in SMX can handle more than that.
This of course is not entirely JBI spec but might come in handy, you also have the opportunity of having the freedom of choice. How you go about it might have to be reflected by use-case, your overall design and how you really want to solve problems. Focusing a little on messaging and getting a good JMS structure in place will certainly payoff in the long run. But SMX does not place any demands on how you do things, see it more as a very capable container that handles both JBI and Osgi and leaves the choice up to you. /je On Sep 16, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Charles Moulliard wrote: > ServiceMix 4.x provides > Charles Moulliard > > Senior Enterprise Architect (J2EE, .NET, SOA) > Apache Camel - Karaf - ServiceMix Committer > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com | Twitter : > http://twitter.com/cmoulliard > Linkedin : http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlesmoulliard | Skype: cmoulliard > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Adrian Trenaman <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi Gary, >> >> I think you could deploy Camel routes and other feaures directly into Karaf; >> however, I view Karaf as being a more 'general' container for OSGi bundles. >> ServiceMix, on the other hand, is a distribution of Karaf with additional >> components that make it a container suited for enterprise integration. All >> the features files for deploying Camel are already configured, all of the >> ServiceMix JBI stuff is there (if you need it!), and, the JBI-free NMR, is >> also already there for you to use as an asynchronous inter-bundle >> communication mechanism. The ServiceMix container is also primed for using >> with ActiveMQ, and for deploying Web- or REST-services. So I think that >> adopting ServiceMix as your container gives you a 'leg-up' in terms of >> having everything ready to go. >> >> Keep in mind though, that thanks to the modular design enabled by OSGi and >> leveraged by Karaf, you can very easily plug out the components you don't >> want, always comfortable in the knowledge that adding them in later is going >> to be easy. For example, one of the first things I do with ServiceMix is >> modify the featuresBoot parameter to kick off just ActiveMQ and Camel, and >> -not- install all the JBI stuff I don't want to use. >> >> In terms of 'separating the use of NMR from JBI', it's easy. Just install >> the NMR feature in SMX. It registers the NMR as an OSGi service, which you >> can then use explicitly. Or, you can use the NMR from your Camel routes >> using the camel-nmr component. >> >> It's all good! >> >> Best, >> Ade. >> >> On 16/09/2010 06:12, gmui wrote: >>> >>> Hi Adrian, >>> >>> Thanks for pointing me to your blog. I just read your "Camel vs. JBI" >>> article and am glad that you had the same ideas. I'm surprised there >>> isn't >>> more about this strategy out there in the blogosphere. Given the >>> availability of Karaf, would you suggest deploying Camel routes and >>> endpoint >>> implementations as features right into the OSGi container (Karaf) or still >>> using Fuse ESB? Is Fuse ESB / ServiceMix when not using the NMR basically >>> just camel on Karaf? And how would you separate the use of the NMR in >>> ServiceMix? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Gary >>> >> 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
