On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > If it's clearly "announced" that HTTP3 is EOL, in that case, it makes sense > to do the same in Camel. >
IMHO That doesnt really matter as much as we have *end users* who use it, then let them use it. Why take something away from them. It just makes people upgrade pain and whatnot. Let people decide what they want to use. I guess you can find other Camel components which is EOL / not really maintained by anybody anymore. For example commons CSV, msv etc http://camel.apache.org/msv > Regards > JB > > > On 04/09/2012 06:02 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: >> >> On Monday, April 09, 2012 05:43:15 PM Claus Ibsen wrote: >>> >>> Its just that Apache iBatis moved out of Apache, and is no longer an >>> Apache project. And therefore people should use the product hosted by >>> MyBatis instead. And as Apache iBatis is retired, then that is fine >>> with me to remove camel-ibatis in Camel 3.0. >>> http://ibatis.apache.org/ >>> >>> The old http client 3.1 is very much still in use. It simply just >>> works. And still other products and frameworks use it. >>> http client 4.x has a very different API / configuration model / that >>> is a bit pain in the ****. >> >> >> According to the hc website, 3.x is end-of-life: >> >> http://hc.apache.org/ >> >> (see very bottom) >> >> Thus, from my perspective, there is no difference between this and the >> iBatis case. In neither case is there a community behind the component >> to >> support it. With iBatis, folks need to move to MyBatis. With http >> client, >> they need to move to 4.x. I'm fine keeping the 3.x version around >> for >> a little while to help people move, but for 3.0, we really need to make >> sure >> the DEFAULT is the version that is actually supported by the communities. >> >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> >>> So I want to keep both of them. >>> - camel-http >>> - camel-mina >>> >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>>> >>>> On 04/09/2012 03:27 PM, Glen Mazza wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Team, I noticed Camel is maintaining both an "HTTP" (using Apache HTTP >>>>> client 3.x) and an "HTTP4" component (using Apache HTTP client 4.x). >>>>> For >>>>> Camel 3.0, can/should the former be removed so only one component is >>>>> maintained, with the latter component optionally being renamed to HTTP >>>>> in the process? >>>>> >>>>> Glen >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>>> jbono...@apache.org >>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- CamelOne 2012 Conference, May 15-16, 2012: http://camelone.com FuseSource Email: cib...@fusesource.com Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
