How about if we can get at least 3 committers to agree to help maintain the component then it should get accepted. I think we should make efforts to grow the camel community past just Java components if possible.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Willem jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> wrote: > Putting the components into Apache Camel umbral could save some work of > contributor when we release the Camel. We add the camel-extra due to the > license issue only. It is hard to say no for the contributing to Apache > Camel if the component has the ASF license already. That is way we have > more then one hundred components today. > > Current the hard part is the Stomp Component is written with Scala, as we > have the camel-scala, I don't think why we can not host the camel-stomp > component except few people know how to maintain it. I think few people > know about jclouds, hl7,redis … but we are open mind to host these > components. > > -- > Willem Jiang > > Red Hat, Inc. > FuseSource is now part of Red Hat > Web: http://www.fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com > Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (http://willemjiang.blogspot.com/) > (English) > http://jnn.iteye.com (http://jnn.javaeye.com/) (Chinese) > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: 姜宁willem > > > > > > On Friday, February 8, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: > > > I also believe Apache Camel the way it is organized now is not the place > > for the scomp component. We are not debating the quality of the scomp > > component. We know however from past experience that the community's > > ability to support scala based code was not at par with the rest of the > > code base. > > > > There are camel components developed and supported outside the ASF. We > > encourage and support that, so that could be an option (camel-extra was > > mentioned I think in another thread). There are other possibilities not > > yet discussed, like moving non-java artifacts into sub-projects > > maintained by people who are best qualified for that. > > > > All potential solutions have pros and cons, I dunno what would be more > > appropriate. At this point I agree with Christian, Apache Camel would > > probably not be a cozy home for scomp. > > > > Cheers, > > Hadrian > > > > > > > > On 02/07/2013 05:15 PM, Christian Müller wrote: > > > Please find my comments inline. > > > > > > Best, > > > Christian > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Henryk Konsek <hekon...@gmail.com(mailto: > hekon...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > > > > > > > Because Camel and Camel-Extra are Java based projects, I don't > think we > > > > > should integrate this component (even if it's a cool component for > Scala > > > > > guys). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm afraid I must disagree :) . > > > > > > > > We support Scala as the 1st class citizen DSL language for Camel and > I > > > > don't see any reason why we should exclude components using Scala > > > > libraries. > > > > > > > > > The component under discussion IS WRITTEN in Scala. It's not, it > "only" use > > > a Scala library. > > > > > > > > > > > Also from the end-user point of view Scala is just an another > library. > > > > I could create the following route in Java DSL and I would not be > even > > > > aware that I'm using Scala under the hood. For example: > > > > from("jms:queue").to("someScalaComponent:foo") > > > > > > > > > It's not the user point of view which concerns me. I'm aware it's > > > transparent for the user. > > > Only a few committers are familiar with Scala. This is what concerns > me. > > > > > > > > > > > The core of the Camel and the Java-related components are written in > > > > Java, but in my humble opinion there is no reason we shouldn't > provide > > > > components written in Scala, as long as the subject of the component > > > > is also written in Scala. > > > > > > > > > Agree. That's the reason why we have a Scala component, a Scala DSL, > ... > > > But providing an integration with Stomp is not a Scala subject IMO. > > > And there is no reason why this component can not be developed in Java. > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we could settle some "official policy" regarding Scala-related > > > > code for Camel? > > > > > > > > > I don't see the need right now. There are many other scripting > languages > > > running in a JVM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_JVM_languages). > > > Should we also accept new components written in these languages? I > don't > > > think so... > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Henryk Konsek > > > > http://henryk-konsek.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- ** *Hiram Chirino* *Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.* *hchir...@redhat.com <hchir...@redhat.com> | fusesource.com | redhat.com* *skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino<http://twitter.com/hiramchirino> * *blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo <http://hiramchirino.com/blog/>*
