On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Jason Letourneau <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Matt's desire might create an even more complex architecture, though a >> wonderful goal. I wouldn't be opposed to just picking a solution and >> designing around it for the purposes of getting the end to end >> solution running and then revisiting the appropriate abstractions. >> >> I had seen Kafka when starting out on the initial code base, I thought >> it held serious promise for Streams. >> >> Advantage of Camel is the ability to deploy as part of the web archive >> vs a standalone service, if Kafka/Storm bring that as well, sounds >> cool to me. They seem to bring the high performance hammer of doom - >> rock on. \\m// >> > > I using Kafka gets you out of using something like Camel (or custom code) > to orchestrate your routes and other end points (i.e. Twitter). > Should have read "I'm not sure using...." > >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Matt Franklin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Danny Sullivan <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> > >> >> Thanks for the info Steve. >> >> As I understand, Kafka would take the place of the functionality of >> what >> >> ActiveMQ does now. Storm would take place of what Camel does now. >> >> >> > >> > I think in the long term we need to have a flexible architecture with a >> few >> > implementations. The way I see it, we need collection, orchestration, >> > processing pipeline, persistence and exposure. If there is a way that >> we >> > can define each of these components loosely coupled enough to where we >> > could have a Kafka OR AMQP routing implementation that would be ideal. >> I >> > haven't thought through exactly how to do this myself, but wanted to >> offer >> > that things may not be mutually exclusive. >> > >
