L.S., How about I split out the ideas about the NMR into a separate page linked from the roadmap? It looks like we first have to get a grip on what exactly are the requirements and use cases we want to handle with our new NMR implementation...
Regards, Gert Vanthienen ------------------------ FuseSource Web: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/ On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Charles Moulliard <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Regarding to the new name of NMR, we could use another acronym --> SML > = ServiceMix Messaging Layer or EML = Endpoints Messaging Layer as the > main goal of this component will be to deliver messages to endpoints > exposed in bundles or in another SMX instances, will also handle > transaction between transactional endpoints, audit messages, provide a > registry to locate endpoints registered and least but not least > provide clustering or clouding > > Regards, > > Charles Moulliard > > Sr. Principal Solution Architect - FuseSource > Apache Committer > > Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com > Twitter : http://twitter.com/cmoulliard > Linkedin : http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlesmoulliard > Skype: cmoulliard > > > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I don't want to split NMR. NMR (or the new proposed name, ServiceMix GL) IS >> ServiceMix 4 :). >> In fact ServiceMix 4 is a premium integration platform for other projects >> (Karaf, CXF, Camel, ActiveMQ, ODE, etc) and the NMR. >> >> So basically my answer is no, I prefer to keep NMR as the main ServiceMix >> project. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On 03/01/2011 09:42 PM, Michael Van wrote: >>> >>> I was a proponent of splitting NMR off of SMX and making it its very own >>> TLP. >>> But, if you guys are going to integrate it deeper into SMX, I can see >>> where >>> that wouldnt' work. ;-) >>> >> >
