I guess I should add that to the FAQ. I get this question once in a while. How would we describe it? there's no need for an Artemiq-Camel component at the moment, just use what?
Any camel specialist can provide me a simple answer to add to the doc? On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Quinn Stevenson <qu...@pronoia-solutions.com> wrote: > I don’t think an equivalent for the “activemq-broker” Camel component is > needed - just my opinion there. > > As far as a “artemis-camel” or “camel-artemis” component goes, I don’t think > one is “needed” - but I’m wondering if a specific component could provide any > value over using just the JMS abstractions. If everything you can do in > “core” is available (or will be available) via the JMS abstractions, then I > don’t see a compelling reason for a component dedicated to Artemis - unless > of course configuring the component becomes too complex or the JMS > abstractions incur too much overhead. > > If it is decided that a specific component would provide some value, I would > like to see it in the Camel project and not in Artemis (i.e. camel-artemis > instead of artemis-camel). Just my opinion ... > > >> On Oct 24, 2016, at 4:40 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> - There is an “activemq-camel” component today, and since Artemis is >> slated to become the next “ActiveMQ”, I was looking for functional >> equivalents. This is actually what started the whole question for me, >> because I can do everything I need to do in core Artemis without >> muddying the waters with JMS abtractions. For example, the aliases >> that get created for JMS destinations really confused me at first. >> >> >> We are fixing the destinations on next release (1.6.0) 1.5.0 is bound >> to be released this week. >> >> >> >> Do we need a camel component within Artemis? if we do we can create >> one.. but every I ask this question I get the same answer that we >> don't need it given it's a bit different with Artemis. >> >> >> if you found a real need we can certainly create it. >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Quinn Stevenson >> <qu...@pronoia-solutions.com> wrote: >>> I can stick with JMS - I’ve used JMS servers for a long time, and I can get >>> what I need done that way. >>> >>> There are a couple of reasons behind the question: >>> >>> - I try to keep my dependencies to a minimum. When I use JMS in camel >>> currently, I use camel-sjms whenever I can (basically whenever I don’t need >>> XA) because the configuration is simpler and I don’t drag in all the Spring >>> dependencies. The camel-sjms component does some other things better IMO >>> opinion as well - but it’s mostly because it’s simpler to configure and >>> easier to use IMO. >>> >>> - There is an “activemq-camel” component today, and since Artemis is slated >>> to become the next “ActiveMQ”, I was looking for functional equivalents. >>> This is actually what started the whole question for me, because I can do >>> everything I need to do in core Artemis without muddying the waters with >>> JMS abtractions. For example, the aliases that get created for JMS >>> destinations really confused me at first. >>> >>> As an aside, there isn’t an equivalent for the activemq-broker component. >>> I don’t really use that one, but it can be handy. I guess I could do this >>> with a diverter, but I haven’t tried yet. >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 20, 2016, at 12:38 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> the JMS layer on Artemis is a thin layer on top of the Core API. I >>>> would stick to JMS or JMS2. >>>> >>>> There are some extra controls you can have on addresses and queues but >>>> that will soon also come into JMS after martyn is done with the >>>> refactoring on addressing here: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/ARTEMIS-780 >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: >>>>> What's the reason behind wanting to avoid using the JMS layer in favor of >>>>> the proprietary Artemis core API? I've not done anything with Artemis, so >>>>> this is very much a question from a place of ignorance, but Quinn's >>>>> statement sounded a lot like "I only want to use Hibernate-proprietary >>>>> APIs, none of those pesky JPA-standard ones that might let me interoperate >>>>> or swap underlying technologies later," and I'm curious about the logic >>>>> that led to the statement... >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 18, 2016 3:55 PM, "Clebert Suconic" <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Quinn Stevenson >>>>>> <qu...@pronoia-solutions.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Clebert - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you for your input! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I try and avoid XA transactions whenever possible as well. I do have a >>>>>> few customers that insist on transactions when they do JMS->JMS routes >>>>>> (the >>>>>> JMS destination are in different brokers/servers - hence the need for >>>>>> XA). >>>>>> >>>>>> got it... was just pointing my 2 cents there. Try to batch (like 1000 >>>>>> messages & 1000 whatever else you are doing on a single TX). if you >>>>>> can. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is really the last piece I need to figure out before I’ll be able >>>>>> to implement Artemis (core only) into our standard flows. I know we can >>>>>> always use the JMS layer, but I’d like to be able to use just the core >>>>>> if I >>>>>> can. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> all the methods available on JMS for XA are also available on >>>>>> ClientSession. There shouldn't be any difference. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me know If you can't figure out, and I (or someone else) may write >>>>>> an example >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I’m planning on doing the integration in Camel, and it’s looking more >>>>>> and more like I’ll need an “artemis-camel” (hosted in the Artemis source) >>>>>> or a “camel-artemis” (hosted in the Camel Components source). Any >>>>>> thoughts >>>>>> on which would be the most appropriate place for the component? ActiveMQ >>>>>> 5.x has the activemq-camel component, but it always seemed to me it was >>>>>> in >>>>>> the wrong place - that it should be camel-activemq. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I looked at the camel component on AMQ5 at some time ago and it would >>>>>> be simple to port it. I thought it wasn't needed though. but if you >>>>>> need it we can add something into artemis/master just like AMQ5 has >>>>>> one. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you add it? Send a PR... we accept PRs :) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> if you even send it soon, I'm planning a release early next week. if >>>>>> it's well done (well done means.. not breaking anything) it might be >>>>>> there before we release it. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Clebert Suconic >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Clebert Suconic > -- Clebert Suconic
