>From a geeking out perspective, the daunting task of moving SMX into Tomcat seems like a good challenge to take on! Overcoming the traditional issues of war-war communication using RMI would be tough, but the result could be a better way of doing things inside of servlet containers, which I can see being adopted by a very large community of developers. From that point of view, I can see that this move will provide quite a bit of new utility to all servlet developers. That improvement, along with the ability to run a fully-fledged ESB inside of a servlet container would add a significant tool to a servlet developers toolbox.
While we're at it, wouldn't it be great to see a scala-based version of SMX also? James Strachan wrote: > > On 1 July 2011 15:32, Michael Van <[email protected]> wrote: >> +1 to Ioannis point. Perhaps I've drank too much of the OSGi kool-aid, >> but >> moving from OSGi to Tomcat seems like a retrograde movement for SMX. > > Noone said moving from OSGi; just supporting either Tomcat or Karaf > containers. > > >> OSGi >> solves quite a few problems that exist in Tomcat, especially from a >> classloader perspective. There are just too many advantages of OSGi over >> tomcat, and moving an application from OSGi to Tomcat to me is akin from >> trading in your Prius for a Gremlin. Basically, its going backward in >> technology with no real reason. > > I hear you. It depends on how you look at it though. If you're happy > with Karaf, stick with it. If you're a user who's using Tomcat, knows > Tomcat really well (like most Java developers), has never touched OSGi > and has a bunch of existing WARs that just work (and probably don't > work in OSGi as you're probably using a ton of non-bundles), then the > Tomcat option is very appealing. Sometimes simpler is better (as > there's less to go wrong & you spend less time fighting with OSGi > metadata) - sometimes you want & need the power of OSGi. > > Each to their own though; the container mechanism for building class > loaders should hopefully be quite separate to how ServiceMix adds > value to projects like ActiveMQ, Camel, CXF etc. > > >> All that said, since the use of Camel/Karaf became mature, SMX's >> viability >> has been a question in my mind. Any change that shows the utility of SMX >> over or in conjunction with Camel/Karaf is welcome. >> >> Good luck! > > Thanks! Its always worth remembering that ServiceMix kinda gave birth > to both Camel and Karaf :). Irrespective of what makes the class > loaders, I still think there's a ton of stuff that ServiceMix can do > to add value. > > -- > James > ------- > FuseSource > Email: [email protected] > Web: http://fusesource.com > Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews > Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ > > Open Source Integration and Messaging > -- View this message in context: http://servicemix.396122.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Rebooting-ServiceMix-5-tp4528896p4542410.html Sent from the ServiceMix - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
