Hi, 1) I also agree keep it along as long as it's not maintained by activiti, which could mean forever since the aries feature is part of karaf also ... :)
2) might be interesting to keep around, but how about as an optional - more standalone like - feature 3) what's the difference to pax-logging? I really need to take a closer look on this .... regards, Achim 2014-02-21 23:16 GMT+01:00 Filippo Balicchia <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > 1: for activiti i think the solution is would be do it at Activiti. > Like other projects like Cxf, Camel and Activemq provides their features > and module osgi compatible > > 2: Akka. I'm not agree to remove it cause from my point of view can be > useful in > Batch processing solution or or domain like online-gaming or finance and > not only obviously. > Have a package ready for a service environment can be convenient. > > Said That, I don't know how far It can serve in an integration platform. > > 3: For logging I'm fully agree with Jb > > Regards > > --Filippo > > > 2014-02-21 19:47 GMT+01:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>: > > > Hi Gert, > > > > I agree: > > > > 1/ for Activiti, ok to keep it in ServiceMix for now. The best would be > to > > do it at Activiti. > > 2/ ok to remove akka. > > 3/ for logging, we can keep it in ServiceMix for now. > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > > > On 02/21/2014 06:02 PM, Gert Vanthienen wrote: > > > >> L.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 > >> > >> > > -- > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > [email protected] > > http://blog.nanthrax.net > > Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > -- Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead OPS4J Pax for Vaadin <http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home> Commiter & Project Lead blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
