+1 on JB's 4.5 idea. Technically its a minimal change, but JBI users will have to change all their deployment configs to explicitly include the JBI features.
On Jul 22, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > Hi Gert, > > As far as I understood, we agreed that SMX4 should keep the JBI > compatibility. JBI will be completely removed in SMX5. > > I'm fully agree to set the JBI feature should be as optional. In that case, > we should send a clear and strong sign to the community. Why not release SMX > 4.5 for the new version (in place of 4.4.0) ? > > My only concern is just to avoid to loose the users. I think that users > expect something close to 4.3.0 in 4.4.0. > If we announce SMX 4.5 with the new distribution, it would be more clear for > the users. > > My 0.02€ > > Regards > JB > > On 07/22/2011 02:26 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote: >> Jean-Baptiste, >> >> >> For the -full assembly, I think it would make sense to take the basic >> assembly and just add all bundles in the system repository instead of >> starting with the -jbi assembly. If we're recommending new users to >> go for Camel/ActiveMQ/CXF instead of JBI, we should not install the >> NMR/JBI features by default in this assembly either - if we just leave >> them as optional features and have everything sitting in the system >> repository already, enabling them would just be a few commands away if >> people wanted to. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Gert Vanthienen >> ------------------------ >> FuseSource >> Web: http://fusesource.com >> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hi Gert, >>> >>> I'm agree that ServiceMix is premium pre-packaged container for >>> ActiveMQ/Camel/CXF. I'm also agree with the usage of SMX without internet >>> connection. >>> >>> Waiting for Karaf profiles (that should be included in Karaf 3.0.0), we can >>> provide the following ServiceMix distribution: >>> >>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0 which is Karaf + ActiveMQ + CXF + Camel, >>> pre-packaged/pre-configured with a warranty of the integration of these >>> projects. The nmr/jbi features will be available as optional. >>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0-nmr which is the previous distribution but nmr >>> feature is installed by default, and as a bootFeatures. The jbi feature is >>> still an optional one. >>> - apache-servicemix-4.4.0-full is the previous distribution but the system >>> repo contains all artifacts required to work offline. >>> >>> WDYT Gert ? >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On 07/20/2011 05:16 PM, 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/ >>> >>> -- >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> [email protected] >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>> > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com
