My assumption is that camel-core (all in one) doesn't have any negative affect on Camel itself and that breaking it up is motivated by a benefit to those projects that want to reduce size.
If that is true, then I recommend leaving camel-core as it is in 2.x - that reduces surprises to all users and prevents a huge bunch of "hey, you broke my app in 3.0" emails to the list. Those applications that want to reduce size can make some simple dependency changes. As a more personal preference, please don't call anything "-lite" - it is way overused and smacks of "cheap, crappy alternative to the real one." Call it camel-base or camel-minimal. -Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Claus Ibsen <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 3:49 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [FEEDBACK] - Apache Camel 3 - camel-core vs camel-core-lite vs > camel-core-all > > Hi > > As you may know Apache Camel 3 development is underway, and part of the > work is to modularize camel-core into smaller modules, where the major > work has been done for the M1 release. This means that 95% of the core > components from camel-core has been moved out, eg camel-log, camel- > seda, camel-direct etc. > > Now we want to have a camel-core dependency that are tiny and would like > feedback on different styles > > 1) > Keep camel-core dependency as in Camel 2.x which has dependency on all > the core components (known as camel-core-all) AND introduce a new camel- > core-lite that has minimal dependencies so you can pick and choose only the > dependencies you need. > > 2) > Keep camel-core as a lite dependency and introduce a new camel-core-all > that has all the core components and is similar to camel 2.x. This means that > users would need to migrate from using camel-core => camel-core-all OR add > only the extra core components they use, eg camel-direct, camel-seda, etc. > > 3) > Do #1 and move towards #2 in the future. > > We can add a new camel-core-all dependency that has all the core > components etc, and then let camel-core depend on this dependency. And > then we can also add the camel-core-lite module as well. Then if we one day > switch camel-core from the ALL to the LITE style, we can do that out of the > box, for example for Camel 4 ;) > > Note: One issue with the name camel-core-all is that it smells like it has > all the > core modules, but it will not include camel-core-osgi or camel-core-xml as > they are only needed when you add camel-spring or camel-blueprint (for > XML and/or OSGi support). > > Well just thinking out loud a bit, here in the morning after a couple of cup > of > coffees. > > Any thoughts and feedback is much welcome. > > > -- > Claus Ibsen > ----------------- > http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus > Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
