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). > > 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. >
