Hi,
don't know if I'm allowed to comment to this mailing list, but if so:
Next to the spring XML + XML-DSL / Java-DSL which are two archtypes
there should exist two other archtypes for the equivalent blueprint
configuration. I think this combination would produce many archtypes
which are hard to handle and understand for a beginner.
So I support the suggestion of Christian. It would be good to have some
archtypes to create a new project like
camel-blueprint
camel-spring
camel-java-standalone
and then like Christian suggested add features to the project like a new
route in Java-DSL / XML-DSL and so on. If you then have support for that
in IDEs like eclipse one can easily built the application he needs
If I was not allowed to add my two cents ignore my opinion ;-)
Marco
Am 27.01.2012 14:34, schrieb Christian Schneider:
Sounds ok to me to have two archetypes then. We should make sure
people understand the purpose of the different archetypes though.
In my opionion the archetypes are quite unflexible anyway. What we
really would need is the possibility to add "features" to an existing
project.
Like "add a jms component", "add a RouteBuilder with javaDSL", ... a
bit like spring roo.
Christian
Am 27.01.2012 08:01, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Christian Schneider
<ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
Am 25.01.2012 14:58, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
It is *not* trivial for people getting started with Camel to figure
out how to use a Spring XML file for the regular Spring stuff.
And then how to add Camel in there, and use the Java DSL.
As you need to add<package>com.foo</package> or use a
<routeBuilderRef> etc. to link the Spring XML file to the Java
RouteBuilder.
There are two kind of people getting started with Camel.
1) People who would avoid Java code and do as much in XML
2) People wo are more savy coders and want to use Java code, but
Spring XML for their bean configuration.
If you have a single archetype for 1+2 then it *confuses people*.
What I meant is that it is easy to add a camel route to a spring
config when
the camel context is already defined as a bean.
So if people have an archetype that uses a camel context in spring
and a
Java route builder then adding an xml route
is easy and removing the a java route builder is also easy. We could
even
define a route in java and another in xml to show both cases
in the same archetype.
IMHO this will confuse people. Best practice is that people either do
routes in Java only, or XML only.
Not really a mix of both worlds.
The archetype is a great way for people getting started with Camel,
and for end users, to quickly create a new Camel project.
All they need to remember is to type
mvn archetype:generate
and then follow the instructions.
The problem with an archetype that does both, is like some of our
examples, they have too much in the same example.
Then people do not know how to differentiate what is what. And why the
pom.xml file has so many dependencies, or different moving parts etc.
People will also be "afraid" what to remove? And how to do that. As
you would need to modify both XML and java source code to remove it
completely etc.
In my experience it is much easier for people to delete unneeded
parts than
adding new parts. So that could work.
Only for experienced developers. For people getting started, they do
not know what to do and what to remove etc.
Christian
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
