Hi Chris, The problems we were hitting were on the 4.1.0.2 release. Isn't 4.1.0.2 one of the 4.1 release? I know that the versioning between servicemix and fuse is slightly different, but I get a little confused as to how to refer to what I'm using when I'm using a fuse release due to the versioning difference.
I noticed a 4.1.0-psc-01-00RC1/<http://repo.open.iona.com/maven2/org/apache/servicemix/apache-servicemix/4.1.0-psc-01-00RC1/>version in the repository, is that meant to be an RC for 4.1? Or am I confusing with the fact that Servicemix 4.1 will be Fuse 4.2 (which is probably what is it). Ryan On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Chris Custine <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Ryan, > Just wondering if these problems you mention are happening on recent > SNAPSHOT builds of SMX4? We have put in a lot of fixes and spent a lot of > time testing compatibility with JBI SA's over the past couple of months so > I > am hoping that some of your issues are addressed. If not please let us > know > as we're hoping to do a ServiceMix 4.1 release very soon. > > Thanks, > Chris > > -- > Chris Custine > FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com > My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com > Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org > Apache Felix :: http://felix.apache.org > Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org > > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Ryan Moquin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I actually ran into several backwards compatibility issues with SMX 4 > when > > deploying SAs that work on SMX3. I also ran into several classloader > > issues > > that don't exist in SMX3 (this is a common problem with OSGI is appears). > > One last thing, is that I have problems with SMX4 reliably deploying my > > SMX3 > > JBI components. It seems to randomly not deploy certain components when > > started up. I'd have to start it several times before all my components > > would appear. I ended up just moving back to SMX3 until SMX4 stabilizes > > some more. Some of our other projects had the same issues with SMX4 and > > moved back to SMX3. The unfortunate thing is that I can't create a > simple > > test case to illustrate these problems since I can't figured out why SMX4 > > deploys our JBI components so indeterministically, but SMX3 always > deploys > > then without issues. > > > > Hopefully this helps a little. If you go with OSGI, hopefully you will > > avoid the issues I mentioned above. > > > > Ryan > > > > 2010/1/6 Raphaël Delaporte <[email protected]> > > > > > Ok, I think I'm a bite confused ... > > > Where are the new OSGi components (or I think we call it bundle) ? > > > Is it possible to use only OSGi (and just forget and throw away JBI) in > > the > > > SM4 version ? > > > > > > In a pure OSGi environnement, there is no more SU/SA ? just some > bundles > > ? > > > > > > This was a little classpath issue. In my xbean.xml file, I use the > > > xmlns:context="http://www.springframework.org/schema/context"; > namespace. > > > In > > > SM3, I don't need to add lib/spring-context.jar to the SU.jar. In SM4, > I > > > need to include the jar. > > > > > > Thanks for your time ! > > > > > > Raphaël. > > > > > > > > > Le 6 janvier 2010 16:56, Grégory Le Bonniec < > > [email protected]> > > > a > > > écrit : > > > > > > > So if I understand, your advice is to use OSGi components. > > > > > > > > Is there a OSGi component collection available (like for JBI : cxf, > > file > > > > ...) ? > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > 2010/1/6 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > it's already the case, the JBI components are shared between SMX3 > and > > > > SMX4. > > > > > Normally, you can deploy directly your SA in SMX4. What issue had > you > > ? > > > > > > > > > > Concerning SMX4, the JBI support is mainly for backward > > compatibility. > > > > > For new users, it's better to directly use OSGi and you can use the > > > > > EndpointExport to use JBI components from your OSGi bundles. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Raphaël Delaporte wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks. > > > > >> > > > > >> Is it planned to migrate all the components from JBI to OSGi ? > > > > >> > > > > >> There is something which afraid me. I just find very few > > documentation > > > > >> about > > > > >> SM4. > > > > >> And I've tried to run some SA which are working on SM3 but are not > > > > working > > > > >> on SM4 (missing jar files from classpath for example). > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> An other question : > > > > >> Does ServiceMix4 support JBI only for backward compatibility ? > > > > >> Or is it a real foundation for this version ? > > > > >> Because it seems you encourage us to use OSGi, and not JBI. > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks. > > > > >> > > > > >> Raphaël > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> 2010/1/6 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > > > > >> > > > > >> FYI, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> We are working on a new homepage to give more visibility to smx4: > > > > >>> http://servicemix.apache.org/home2 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Regards > > > > >>> JB > > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > > >>> From: Raphaël Delaporte <[email protected]> > > > > >>> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:49 > > > > >>> To: <[email protected]> > > > > >>> Subject: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Hi all, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I'm wondering which version of ServiceMix I should use (SM3 or > SM4) > > > to > > > > >>> start > > > > >>> new project for production. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I know the SM3 version is mature enough, has good examples, and > > > stable. > > > > >>> I guess the SM4 version is maybe a bit young. Very few examples, > > > small > > > > >>> doc... > > > > >>> For instance, the web home page of the SM project is for SM3, not > > > SM4. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Am I wrong ? What are your opinions ? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Thanks for your replies. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Raphaël. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > -- > > > > > Jean-Baptiste Onofré (Nanthrax) > > > > > BuildProcess/AutoDeploy Project Leader > > > > > http://buildprocess.sourceforge.net > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > PGP : 17D4F086 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
