+1 for both ideas. I think it all helps users getting starting and using Apache ServiceMix, which is all a good thing.
In the latter case we should also ensure any XML file for ActiveMQ, Camel, Spring, Blueprint etc. does not cause the XML parser to go online to validate the XML with the schema. I think in the past there has been some odd issues with this. So we may want to have a test where you disable internet :) On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Gert Vanthienen <[email protected]> wrote: > L.S., > > > Looking at mails on the user mailing lists and going by my own > production project experience, I'm seeing two use cases for ServiceMix > where we could support our user base by providing new packaging > options for Apache ServiceMix. > > 1). A lot of our users seem to be using only Camel/ActiveMQ (and > perhaps CXF) on their Karaf runtimes. Many people don't have a use > case for JBI/NMR and then decide to just create the container they are > looking for by adding things on top of Karaf directly. I think it > would be a good idea to add a apache-servicemix-4.x.0-minimal > distribution which only packages and installs these basic bundles and > leaves everything else there as optional features. Given that we are > recommending the use of Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF over JBI/NMR ourselves a > lot, we should really have our distribution represent that > recommendation. Over time, we might even consider making this the > default download and renaming the existing one to > apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi instead or something. > > 2). Another question we occasionally see on the mailing lists is from > users that are running ServiceMix on machines that don't have internet > access and that are having a hard time installing optional features. > In order to cater for that need, we could add an > apache-servicemix-4.x.0-full distribution that contains bundles for > all the features we ship with, regardless of whether they're installed > by default or not. A quick test shows that it would become over 200 > MB in size, which might make the release process a bit heavy, but one > other hand: there's definitely a user base for this kind of convenient > all-in-one download as well. > > What do people think about adding these two packaging options? > > > Regards, > > Gert Vanthienen > ------------------------ > FuseSource > Web: http://fusesource.com > Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/ > -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- FuseSource Email: [email protected] Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
