+1 Re (1).. if there is a recommended release, I suggest forgoing any further adjectives, and just call it apache-servicemix-4.x.0. Make the JBI release the "special name" release ie.. apache-servicemix-4.x.0-jbi. "Minimal" might suggest missing core features, and besides the JBI users know who they are ;-)
Re (2) Yes! Yes! Yes! Offline and users behind corporate proxies have all sorts of issues if they can't connect. Matt Pavlovich On Jul 20, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Gert Vanthienen 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/
