camel-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Quinn Stevenson <qu...@pronoia-solutions.com>
Subject Re: [FEEDBACK] - Apache Camel 3 - camel-core vs camel-core-lite vs camel-core-all
Date Wed, 06 Mar 2019 03:01:37 GMT
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 <shuston@riverace.com> 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 <claus.ibsen@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 3:49 AM
>> To: users@camel.apache.org
>> 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


Mime
View raw message