The other issue *I* have with Scala stuff in the main camel build is the difficulty in getting those modules into the various IDEs. (eclipse in particular)
I'm wondering if it makes sense to put Scala stuff at Apache, but into a Camel sub-project type of thing. camel/scala-components/trunk type thing. It could have it's own releases (with whatever Scala version is popular at the time), etc… This could also be a kind of "pilot" program for possibly having individual component releases so in the future, we could get away from the "release every component" thing, if we decide to go that way. Anyway, just a though. If we can do it at Apache, I'd definitely prefer it, but mixing the Scala and Java stuff together into a single build just feels weird and has issues. Dan On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:16 AM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Ioannis Canellos <ioca...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I prefer having all sources in java, however not accepting scala >> contributions in the community doesn't seem right to me. >> I'd say let's try to keep everything java, but if there is a good reason >> for people using scala and we have a good number of committers willing to >> work in scala a scala-components module doesn't sound bad to me. >> > > +1 > > I dont see much interrest in creating Scala based components for > Camel, just because its Scala programming language. Though having a > number of Camel components using Scala because they integrate with > Scala > based libraries is OKAY with me. Though if someone creates a new Camel > component to integration with Facebook, then I would favor that being > Java based. > > I guess what triggered this was that Stomp component that was Scala > based, because it uses a Scala library for the STOMP communication. If > I had a choice and there was a pure Java stomp client I would favor > that over the Scala based. But I guess there is not, so I am okay with > the camel-stomp being Scala based for now. > > The only concern for Scala based components is the bad backwards > compatability Scala has. eg the Scala 2.9 vs 2.10 debacle. I think for > Scala based components we cannot dual support both Scala 2.9 and 2.10 > binary releases. And therefore they would be Scala 2.10 based for now. > >> >> -- >> *Ioannis Canellos* >> * >> >> ** >> Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com >> ** >> Twitter: iocanel >> * > > > > -- > Claus Ibsen > ----------------- > Red Hat, Inc. > FuseSource is now part of Red Hat > Email: cib...@redhat.com > Web: http://fusesource.com > Twitter: davsclaus > Blog: http://davsclaus.com > Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
