I don't understand why we'd want to burden Apache Karaf - a project focused on providing an OSGi ecosystem - with server components that are clearly integration-related.
BPM and OSGi have nothing to do with each other by bare nature, nor is Activiti implementing any OSGi specification or Java EE spec. In my opinion, building "bridges" between Karaf/OSGi and integration-related components is the true spirit of the SMX project. Therefore, I'd be -1 to divest this module. Regards, Raúl. On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > I'd like to have activiti feature too, as long as it can be moved into the > Karaf Features subproject. The other modules - we don't need to keep it in > core servicemix, but I think, someone has done a work to provide these > features. We can eventually keep it at least as samples for people ho want > to use such features in the future. > > B.t.w., I think whether we could provide something like ServiceMix by > Example (similar to Fuse by Example). We could add there samples/demos > which we don't want to include in ServiceMix distribution. > > Regards > Krzysztof > > On 21.02.2014 18:02, Gert Vanthienen wrote: > >> o use such fL.S., >> >> >> >> As suggested by a lot of people over the past week , we should focus >> on the core assembly before anything else. If we look at the current >> ServiceMix 5 project layout, that would mean we have 3 non-core bits >> in there that we would need to think about. >> >> The first one is the "activiti" module. This seems to be a pretty >> good match for our core technology set. So I would suggest we keep >> that around for now, once it moves to a Karaf subproject or (even >> better) to the Activiti project itself, we can just reuse that effort >> and remove our bits. >> >> The two things we do may want to remove are the "akka" and "logging" >> modules. >> >> The "akka" bits are a personal experiment of mine and I'm not sure >> anyone is using that at all. Also, that technology is probably a bit >> alien to a lot of people in the community, so it probably makes no >> sense keeping it around. I would propose we just remove that >> entirely. >> >> For "logging": I doubt a lot of people are using that as well. I was >> first thinking of adding a demo using Camel Pax-Logging instead, but >> that seems a bit harder than I expected. Regardless, this is another >> module where we should ask ourselves whether we want to keep it around >> (for now) or not. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Gert Vanthienen >> > > > -- > Krzysztof Sobkowiak > > JEE & OSS Architect | Technical Architect @ Capgemini > Capgemini <http://www.pl.capgemini.com/> | Software Solutions Center < > http://www.pl.capgemini-sdm.com/> | Wroclaw > e-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> | > Twitter: @KSobkowiak >
