camel-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralf Claussnitzer <>
Subject Re: [FEEDBACK] - Apache Camel 3 - camel-core vs camel-core-lite vs camel-core-all
Date Fri, 08 Mar 2019 07:46:05 GMT
Well, I would expect the core to include all the core modules. So 
"camel-core" should deliver on this. If there is need for a "smaller 
core", than the "bigger core" should have it as a dependency. This leads 
to awkward naming, because we have now got a "core core". For this "core 
core" I would go with the naming "camel-base" or "camel-runtime".


On 3/6/19 4:01 AM, Quinn Stevenson wrote:
> 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 <> 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 <>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 3:49 AM
>>> To:
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> coffees.
>>> Any thoughts and feedback is much welcome.
>>> --
>>> Claus Ibsen
>>> -----------------
>>> @davsclaus
>>> Camel in Action 2:

View raw message