I’d prefer to have camel-core act like 2.x as well to minimize surprises as much as possible when upgrading.
Maybe the new “lite” module could be called something like “camel-engine”? > On Mar 5, 2019, at 7:49 AM, Steve Huston <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
