I'm ok on changing the groupId for the starters.
I'm totally -1 on moving the starters in a different repository now.
I don't see any advantage in moving them in a different repository by the way.
--
Andrea Cosentino
--
Apache Camel PMC Chair
Apache Karaf
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:27 AM Zoran Regvart wrote:
>
> Hi Guillaume and Claus,
> I think your points are valid and they might make me change my mind on this.
>
> If I can put one more argument for changing the group ID that would be
> that the `org.apache.came:xyz-starter` coordinate signals a
Moving the starters out of the current repository is not really
straightforward.
We have a lot of points related in the code.
Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 09:27 Zoran Regvart
ha scritto:
> Hi Guillaume and Claus,
> I think your points are valid and they might make me change my mind on
>
Hi Guillaume and Claus,
I think your points are valid and they might make me change my mind on this.
If I can put one more argument for changing the group ID that would be
that the `org.apache.came:xyz-starter` coordinate signals a starter
for Camel not for Spring Boot, but than again this is
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:27 AM Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>
> Fwiw, given the way the source tree is laid out, I don't foresee supporting
> a new major version of spring-boot side-by-side with the current version.
> The reason is that it would add another 200 artifacts to the build, which
> is
Fwiw, given the way the source tree is laid out, I don't foresee supporting
a new major version of spring-boot side-by-side with the current version.
The reason is that it would add another 200 artifacts to the build, which
is already way too big.
Depending on where the quarkus proposal go, we may
Hi Peter,
thank you for voicing your opinions, I value your input
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:05 PM Peter Palaga wrote:
> I do not follow how having org.apache.camel.spring.boot "allows" for
> having org.apache.camel.spring.boot{n} in the future. You can add
> org.apache.camel.spring.boot{n} at
The second artifact you are mentioning will be released under a different
release cycle and btw only for the first release of camel 3. If there will
be a new starter after that it will be for 3.1. Like we did in 2.x between
different versions, 2.23 vs 2.24 for example
Il gio 13 giu 2019, 19:03
It's just a groupId name changed between camel version 2 and 3. To me, all
this discussion seems to be useless.
Il gio 13 giu 2019, 18:05 Peter Palaga ha scritto:
> Hi Zoran, inline...
>
> On 13/06/2019 17:12, Zoran Regvart wrote:
> > Hi Peter (again) :)
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 4:56
Hi Zoran, inline...
On 13/06/2019 17:12, Zoran Regvart wrote:
Hi Peter (again) :)
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 4:56 PM Peter Palaga wrote:
Given what you said, what are once again the benefits changing the
groupId of the SB starters?
I've touched upon some of the benefits in my original
Hi Peter (again) :)
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 4:56 PM Peter Palaga wrote:
> Given what you said, what are once again the benefits changing the
> groupId of the SB starters?
I've touched upon some of the benefits in my original e-mail[1], in
short I think that having a separate namespace allows us
The benefits are in what Zoran described in the starting email.
There will be anyway a migration effort for the end users once they'll pass
to Camel 3.
I believe we are limiting the migration effort already, changing a groupId
of a starter is not a big problem and it doesn't add too much effort
Thanks, Andrea, for the clarification.
Given what you said, what are once again the benefits changing the
groupId of the SB starters?
By breaking the 1:1:1 relationship between release cycle, groupId and
git repository, we will cause confusion and migration costs on the side
of the users
Hello Peter,
We can do this until we are under heavy development like we are now on
Camel 3.
The groupId won't change anymore once we release 3.0.0 final release. This
is why we are discussing this now.
For the second question, there is no plan to split and support multiple
different starters
Hi Zoran,
as far as I can understand, moving the Spring Boot starters to a
separate git repository is not a part of this plan, right?
If so, I tend to think this is not a good idea. Here is why:
1. Having a 1:1:1 relationship between release cycle, groupId and git
repository seems to be the
Agree, we can add versions when we actually need them.
org.apache.camel.spring.boot seems fine.
Thanks,
Gregor
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 1:32 PM Zoran Regvart wrote:
>
> Hi Cameleers,
> from what I read, seems like there are no objections in doing this,
> I've created an issue[1] and I can work
org.apache.camel.spring.boot sounds good to me.
--
Andrea Cosentino
--
Apache Camel PMC Chair
Apache Karaf Committer
Apache Servicemix PMC Member
Email: ancosen1...@yahoo.com
Twitter: @oscerd2
Github: oscerd
On Thursday, June 13, 2019, 1:32:53 PM GMT+2,
Hi Cameleers,
from what I read, seems like there are no objections in doing this,
I've created an issue[1] and I can work on this for the next
milestone.
Any thoughts on what the new group ID would be? I was thinking
`org.apache.camel.spring.boot` seems pretty self explanitory. To have
it exactly
+1
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 9:00 AM Gregor Zurowski
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:08 PM Zoran Regvart wrote:
> >
> > Hi Cameleers,
> > we publish Spring Boot starters with the Maven group ID of
> > `org.apache.camel`, I think it would be better if we publish them with
> > another
+1
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:08 PM Zoran Regvart wrote:
>
> Hi Cameleers,
> we publish Spring Boot starters with the Maven group ID of
> `org.apache.camel`, I think it would be better if we publish them with
> another group ID, something like `org.apache.camel.spring.boot`.
>
> My reasoning is
+1
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:50 PM Alex Dettinger
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:33 PM Andrea Cosentino
> wrote:
>
> > Ah sorry, for the misunderstanding, yeah we're saying the same thing.
> >
> > Il giorno mer 12 giu 2019 alle ore 16:32 Guillaume Nodet <
> > gno...@apache.org>
> >
+1
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:33 PM Andrea Cosentino wrote:
> Ah sorry, for the misunderstanding, yeah we're saying the same thing.
>
> Il giorno mer 12 giu 2019 alle ore 16:32 Guillaume Nodet <
> gno...@apache.org>
> ha scritto:
>
> > I was referring to the "Today with org.apache.camel, then we
Ah sorry, for the misunderstanding, yeah we're saying the same thing.
Il giorno mer 12 giu 2019 alle ore 16:32 Guillaume Nodet
ha scritto:
> I was referring to the "Today with org.apache.camel, then we know all of
> that is the official Apache Camel." sentence which implies that if the
>
I was referring to the "Today with org.apache.camel, then we know all of
that is the official Apache Camel." sentence which implies that if the
groupId isn't org.apache.camel, it may not be official. I slightly
disagree, as I think anything that *starts with* org.apache.camel is
supposed to be
It's just a different package naming.. It's org.apache.camel.spring.boot
--
Andrea Cosentino
--
Apache Camel PMC Chair
Apache Karaf Committer
Apache Servicemix PMC Member
Email: ancosen1...@yahoo.com
Twitter: @oscerd2
Github: oscerd
On Wednesday, June 12,
Anything that starts with org.apache.xxx should be released by the
corresponding Apache project.
If that's not the case for Camel, we should ask the other projects to
change their groupId to something not starting with org.apache.camel.
Le mer. 12 juin 2019 à 12:24, Claus Ibsen a écrit :
> Hi
>
+1
Regards
JB
On 12/06/2019 12:08, Zoran Regvart wrote:
> Hi Cameleers,
> we publish Spring Boot starters with the Maven group ID of
> `org.apache.camel`, I think it would be better if we publish them with
> another group ID, something like `org.apache.camel.spring.boot`.
>
> My reasoning is
Hi
Well then we have camel-spring-boot itself, its not a starter should
it then also have that group id or not?
Today with org.apache.camel, then we know all of that is the official
Apache Camel.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:08 PM Zoran Regvart wrote:
>
> Hi Cameleers,
> we publish Spring Boot
I think it makes sense and we can do that for Camel 3.
+1.
Il giorno mer 12 giu 2019 alle ore 12:08 Zoran Regvart
ha scritto:
> Hi Cameleers,
> we publish Spring Boot starters with the Maven group ID of
> `org.apache.camel`, I think it would be better if we publish them with
> another group
Hi Cameleers,
we publish Spring Boot starters with the Maven group ID of
`org.apache.camel`, I think it would be better if we publish them with
another group ID, something like `org.apache.camel.spring.boot`.
My reasoning is that with time there might be other kinds of starters,
even within the
30 matches
Mail list logo
