L.S.,
Before we get ourselves in the mess of having independent lifecycles for some modules within the ServiceMix project again, perhaps it's worth considering which bits of those non-core modules we actually want to keep around. I think we really need the stuff in assemblies, branding, examples and itests. Having well-tested assemblies with nice examples in there should be the real focus here. What's left besides this, is activiti, akka and logging. If we want to further reduce the scope/effort on our end, I would propose: - activiti: let's keep that around for now, if it moves to a Karaf subproject or (even better) to the Activit project itself, we can just reuse that effort and remove our bits - akka: perhaps we should remove that alltogether? not sure if anyone is using that at the moment and it's probably technology that's a bit alien to a lot of people in the community - logging: I doubt a lot of people are using that as well, perhaps we're better off adding a demo using the Camel paxlogging component that shows people how to do the same using a Camel route? Regards, Gert Vanthienen On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Cristiano Costantini <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> * Let's make SMX leaner by focusing on "the big 4" components. >> > I totally agree > > >> * Independent lifecycles for additional modules or capabilities. >> > I totally agree > > >> * Upstream dependency upgrades can be controlled and updated locally in a >> more granular manner. >> > A good nice to have > > >> * Set of "servicemix" shell commands to add capabilities which are hosted >> and versioned separately from the core. >> > A good nice to have > > > >> What do you think? >> > see above
