SInce I work pretty much 97.98% in osgi, I'll weigh in and say that I really like this. If XML is only used from Blueprint / Spring-DM, we provide those with the features descriptors, they import nothing - i.e. are model/api bundles, why make a jar bigger?
I really don't think we should refactor code based on <INSERT FAVORITE IDE> behavior, Camel is getting to be an "old" and "established" project, the quotation marks here just since oss moves fast. :) It is sometimes frustrating to have to sit with customers when most of my replies simply are, yes - upgrade :) I spend pretty much every day nowadays on the road helping people solve problems with camel, integrate systems and with the fixes that went into 2.8, it is a pretty darn stable library, we had a few last integrations fixes on class loading with patches from Gert, that I think solved a majority of potential AMQ object marshaling issues, I'd much rather push API changes towards more modularity, optional usage but... We really are getting bigger, so breaking an API is something that will tick people of. I'm not sure I'd describe Camel core as bloated, I'd possibly say there are some interesting things in there, as an evolutionary process and example of evolution; I often hold Camels SPI/Osgi loading and inheritance model which shows in things like JMX as a way of how you can write things in a pretty nice modular way. Just my 0.1.. On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Christian Schneider < ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote: > camel-core-xml has only a bunch of classes. It adds not a single > dependency. > So I think it could be added to core. We can also leave it in a separate > jar but then it should be that .. a simple jar. > In the moment the camel-core-xml classes are directly imported into spring > and blueprint projects. This makes the build process more complicated than > it needs to be and at least in Eclipse it causes additional problems. > > Architecture is always balancing of requirements. So as it is a requirement > to make camel easy to use for users but also to make it easy to use for > developers of camel I think it is the best choide to move > camel-core-xml into the core. > > The big jar option is not a bad idea. I think we could use this when we > split camel-core to make it easier for beginners to start with camel. > > Christian > > Am 31.08.2011 21:45, schrieb Guillaume Nodet: > >> That's a modularity problem. If we want Camel to behave nicely in >> OSGi (and that's not the only reason), we need to be modular, i.e. >> have jars that can focus on one thing instead of having a single jar >> with all dependencies being optional. It really helps managing >> dependencies both internally and externally. >> >> If you really want a big fat jar, we could consider building one in >> addition to the small jars, kinda like what CXF does. There may be >> use cases for that, but that does not mean it should be the only >> packaging. >> >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 19:45, Christian Schneider >> >> <ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote: >> >>> The camel-core is already bloated anyway. I see no reason to not include >>> those classes. >>> The current mechanism of directly including the classes in camel-spring >>> and >>> camel-blueprint is really strange and I think having some classes in core >>> that are not needed in some cases is much better then what we have now. >>> >>> We will need to split the core anyway for 3.0 so reintegrating >>> camel-core-xml would reduce the number of jars again which is good. >>> >>> Christian >>> >>> >>> Am 31.08.2011 17:54, schrieb Claus Ibsen: >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Christian Schneider >>>> <ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> That sounds to me like it would fit nicely in camel-core. >>>>> >>>>> No as that is just bloat to the core. >>>> >>>> >>>> Btw. is there a reason why camel-core-xml is scope provided in >>>>> camel-spring? >>>>> This gives me errors in some tests of other components in eclipse as >>>>> these >>>>> classes can not be found. >>>>> >>>>> There is no problem at all in IDEA. >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes one of the reasons is osgi. By having the camel-core-xml .class >>>> files included directly into the camel-spring and camel-blueprint >>>> wo dont have any osgi hickups due JAR files not being loaded and >>>> whatnot. That was a pain in the past. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christian >>>>> >>>>> Am 31.08.2011 17:43, schrieb Claus Ibsen: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Christian Schneider >>>>>> <ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> can someone tell me what the purpose of camel-core-xml is and why it >>>>>>> has >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> be a spearate project? >>>>>>> It does not seem to have any other dependencies than camel-core. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So if there is no good reason to keep it separate I propose to move >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> code into camel-core. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. >>>>>> >>>>>> Its an abstract component which has base classes used by XML DSLs such >>>>>> as camel-spring and camel-blueprint. >>>>>> This ensures that code is reused between the 2 XML DSLs and make it >>>>>> easier to keep them in sync and whatnot. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Christian Schneider >>>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de >>>>> >>>>> Open Source Architect >>>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>> Christian Schneider >>> http://www.liquid-reality.de >>> >>> Open Source Architect >>> http://www.talend.com >>> >>> >>> >> >> > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architect > http://www.talend.com > >
