Re: [DISCUSS] Remove the camel:dot goal

2013-12-02 Thread Christian Müller
+1 Best, Christian Am 29.11.2013 03:08 schrieb "Hadrian Zbarcea" : > The camel:dot goal provided by the camel-maven-plugin has not been > maintained in 5+ years, produces poor quality output and, most importantly, > doesn't seem to be used. I propose to remove it. > > Hadrian > > >

Re: git commit: CAMEL-7023: Added hawtio goal to camel maven plugin.

2013-12-02 Thread Preben.Asmussen
As a Camel user I welcome debate, since it's a sign of good health that there is different opinions, and interests, but let the debate continue in a good technical spirit :-) Best, Preben -- View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Re-git-commit-CAMEL-7023-Added-hawtio-g

Re: git commit: CAMEL-7023: Added hawtio goal to camel maven plugin.

2013-12-02 Thread James Carman
Agreed. I'm also -1 on this commit. On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > I’m -1 to this commit. I don’t think we should be adding a bunch of targets > for all the various container/platform integrations. This starts going down > the road of adding targets for karaf, glass

Re: git commit: CAMEL-7023: Added hawtio goal to camel maven plugin.

2013-12-02 Thread Achim Nierbeck
Hi all, I find this conversation very amusing and worrying in the same time. (could someone please hand me some coke and popcorn) It’s rather queer how Hawt.io is being pushed in three different Apache Projects right now. This leaves me with a rather shallow taste (in German “Geschmäckle”) and t

Re: git commit: CAMEL-7023: Added hawtio goal to camel maven plugin.

2013-12-02 Thread Jeff Genender
I will submit my -1 as well. This is not a political discussion, it is technical and Dan's points are indeed technical. I would suggest that any political lines that have appeared to have been drawn here are taken to private@ and need to be worked out there. This is no place to be opining on the

Re: git commit: CAMEL-7023: Added hawtio goal to camel maven plugin.

2013-12-02 Thread James Carman
Furthermore, let me add that I agree with Dan Kulp's assessment and his reasons are not political. They are technical. On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:23 AM, James Carman wrote: > Agreed. I'm also -1 on this commit. > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: >> >> I’m -1 to this commit.

Re: Does the run goal of the Camel Maven Plugin really boots up a new JVM?

2013-12-02 Thread Babak Vahdat
Thanks for your reply. I corrected the documentation regarding this as otherwise users would think we would really fork a new JVM process like the way you can do today for example using the Maven Surefire Plugin's forkMode etc. Babak Claus Ibsen-2 wrote > Hi > > Yeah it runs in the same JVM. >

Re: Does the run goal of the Camel Maven Plugin really boots up a new JVM?

2013-12-02 Thread Claus Ibsen
Hi Yeah it runs in the same JVM. Its no different than for example if you cd examples cd camel-example-servlet-tomcat mvn jetty:run And startup an embedded jetty server for this WAR project And if you want to use tomcat instead you can type mvn tomcat7:run On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Bab

Does the run goal of the Camel Maven Plugin really boots up a new JVM?

2013-12-02 Thread Babak Vahdat
Hi The Camel Maven Plugin is a hot topic these days :) so I came accross something which I think the documentation is wrong: http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-plugin.html As I was looking into my own comment for CAMEL-7028 I realized that our RunMojo boots up Camel JUST inside a new Thread of

Does the run goal of the Camel Maven Plugin really boots up a new JVM?

2013-12-02 Thread Babak Vahdat
Hi The Camel Maven Plugin is a hot topic these days :) so I came across something which I think the documentation is wrong: http://camel.apache.org/camel-maven-plugin.html As I was looking into my own comment for CAMEL-7028 I realized that our RunMojo boots up Camel JUST inside a new Thread of t