JB, Thats an excellent goal. If it works, I can see the nmr component being something provided by many major J2EE vendors out-of-the-box to thier users.
Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm not agree with that, and I don't think that it's the Guillaume's > point of view. > > The idea speaking about Tomcat is not to create ServiceCat or something > like that. If the purpose was this one, Karaf + Jetty already does the > stuff. > > The idea is more to provide: > - ServiceMix as a standalone ESB (as ServiceMix 4) powered by Karaf > container > - ServiceMix as an embeddable WAR or EAR. Tomcat is just an example but > the purpose is wider. For my point of view, if we want to go this way, > we shouldn't be focus on Tomcat but be more generic. The purpose is to > be able to deploy ServiceMix 5 into existing containers like Tomcat, but > also Glassfish, Websphere, etc. The goals are to use the container > resources (JNDI, JTA, etc integration) and increase the ServiceMix > adoption for existing IT administrators. > > Regards > JB > > On 07/01/2011 09:03 PM, Michael Van wrote: >> Upon re-reading this thread, it appears there are two subtely different >> approaches being suggested: >> 1) To merge most of SMX into the Tomcat container creating a new little >> beasty "Servicecat" or something, and >> 2) To modify the existing SMX bundles so that they work inside of a >> (any) >> servlet container. >> >> I like the second option more than the first, because it will greatly >> increase the set of users that can/will-be-able-to use it. The first >> option >> is intriguing, but I dont' know if it would overcome the stated design >> goal >> of allowing folks who are using legacy environements to use SMX. >> >> Could someone clarify the option being proposed? >> >> >> dblevins wrote: >>> >>> >>> Michael Van wrote: >>>> >>>> From a geeking out perspective, the daunting task of moving SMX into >>>> Tomcat seems like a good challenge to take on! Overcoming the >>>> traditional issues of war-war communication using RMI would be tough, >>>> but >>>> the result could be a better way of doing things inside of servlet >>>> containers, which I can see being adopted by a very large community of >>>> developers. From that point of view, I can see that this move will >>>> provide quite a bit of new utility to all servlet developers. That >>>> improvement, along with the ability to run a fully-fledged ESB inside >>>> of >>>> a servlet container would add a significant tool to a servlet >>>> developers >>>> toolbox. >>>> >>> >>> Maybe two years ago Tuscany got inspired to do the same with Tomcat and >>> also pointed at what we now call TomEE. They basically took all the >>> Tomcat integration code, said thank you, and went their separate way >>> with >>> it. I admit it was a little disappointing as we would have happily >>> supported them and it would have been great to see the idea grow rather >>> than be copied. It's been forked again recently for a commercial app >>> server. Similar thanks and see you later. >>> >>> We're more than happy to support ServiceMix if you guys want to go down >>> this route. The backup plan could of course be to take the code and >>> run, >>> but it would be great to at least give working together a shot. >>> >>> >>> -David >>> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://servicemix.396122.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Rebooting-ServiceMix-5-tp4528896p4543013.html >> Sent from the ServiceMix - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- View this message in context: http://servicemix.396122.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Rebooting-ServiceMix-5-tp4528896p4543186.html Sent from the ServiceMix - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
