L.S.,
Yeah, I do agree that now that the 4.3.0 release is out, we probably want to focus on the documentation again. We can merge the ideas page, but I'd really love to try and get a shorter release cycle next time around, so let's try not to get ahead of ourselves with picking up new features. A good, clean 4.4.0 build with new version of CXF, Camel and ActiveMQ is worth a lot in itself to many users, especially if we can get that done together with a nice set of docs. We can obviously add new stuff too if we like, but I would suggest we aim at those two goals in the first place. About the survey, I'm open to the idea and it would be great to learn what our users have to say. I just wonder if we shouldn't try to get our act together first before we do the survey. Right now, doing the survey would no doubt yield a lot of ideas and remarks we're already aware of: the lack of good documentation, the length of the release cycles, the website, ... If we can address those concerns in our next release, we might get more relevant ideas from a survey afterwards. Regards, Gert Vanthienen ------------------------ FuseSource Web: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/ On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I guess that you've already seen that Gert and I updated the ServiceMix > website: > http://servicemix.apache.org > > We're still working on the website and documentation, so we will have > updated soon. > > Related to this thread, we created a roadmap wiki page to write down our > discussions: > http://servicemix.apache.org/roadmap.html > Feel free to edit the wiki page to append some ideas/thoughts. > I think that I will merge the idea wiki page: > http://servicemix.apache.org/ideas.html > into the roadmap. After we will be able to prioritize in the releases > schedule. > > Anyway, I like the Guillaume's idea about a ServiceMix survey to get a > feedback from the community. > I would like to make progress around this topic. Could we have some help > around that ? > > Thanks > Regards > JB > > On 02/16/2011 10:25 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> As you know, ServiceMix 4.3.0 release has been submitted to VOTE. If >> it's fine, the release will be available before the end of this week. >> In the mean time, I'm testing ServiceMix 3 (especially around >> Components) to be able to submit ServiceMix 3.3.3 release to vote >> tonight or tomorrow morning. >> >> It's time to deal with the ServiceMix roadmap :) >> >> I think it makes sense to prepare ServiceMix 4.4.0 with the following >> enhancements: >> - powered by Karaf 2.2.0 >> - dependencies upgrade: Aries 0.3, Camel 2.7 (depending of the timing), >> CXF 2.3.3, etc >> - bug fixing in ServiceMix modules: components, utils, specs, NMR. >> - features improving (avoid to override tiers features such as the Camel >> one) >> - build improving (especially around the add-features-to-repo goal and >> dependency set). >> - documentation and website. It's known issue. Before releasing >> ServiceMix 4.4.0, the documentation should be improved. Some of us are >> already involved (especially Gert), but we need to be in commando mode >> for this important task. >> To summarize, ServiceMix 4.4.0 will be a maintenance release, mainly >> containing bug fixed and dependencies update. >> >> Anyway, I think that we need to prepare the next major ServiceMix >> release: ServiceMix 5.0.0. >> I would like to split the discussion in three parts: >> 1/ Architecture/Design update >> As discussed before, JBI support should set as deprecated but only >> available as optional feature. >> Regarding this, I deeply think that NMR is a really plus value module. >> Too much people are thinking that ServiceMix 4 NMR is only the JBI >> implementation support in ServiceMix. It's too restrictive. >> NMR could have a key role in ServiceMix. I've some ideas in mind: >> - better relationship between NMR and Camel >> - generic clustering/farming/clouding support >> - transaction/distributed transaction >> - service registry and service locator >> - etc >> I'm quite sure that lot of us have others ideas :) >> I propose to create a roadmap page in the ServiceMix wiki to discuss of >> that and draft the future architecture of the NMR and ServiceMix 5. >> 2/ Tooling >> We're all agree that our integrated modules are rock solid: karaf, nmr, >> camel, cxf, etc. >> Of course, we have to provide new features, improve some parts, etc. >> There's no discuss around that. >> However, I think that we need to provide some tooling. I don't talk >> about killer tool to do every thing, but at least, some tool to increase >> the adoption of ServiceMix for the production administrator. >> For instance, just a clean console for monitoring and simple management >> of ServiceMix will provide a good start for administrator. >> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that ServiceMix is really great for a >> developer and an integration team. However, I'm quite sure that the >> administrator (the same guy who uses the WebSphere or Weblogic console) >> is expecting a simple console for monitoring a production running >> environment. >> 3/ Infra update >> The current svn repo organization is not very flexible. >> The smx4 repo module should be rename in smx. >> In this module the features module should be renamed as runtime. >> >> It means that we will have: >> - smx3 for ServiceMix 3 (maintenance reason) >> - smx (moved from smx4) >> -- bundles >> -- specs >> -- nmr >> -- obr >> -- runtime >> >> WDYT ? >> >> Thanks all >> Regards >> JB >
