First of all thanks for this discussion, from my point of view, servicemix should continue living for reality who needs a minimalist distro in which is possible found some of the leading actors like ActiveMQ, CXF and Camel in a single solution.
Ok, if one wants can do it alone ! but found it out of the box in IHMO and very comfortable. In servicemix 5 is possible find modules that can used to create solutions of a certain dignity then why throw them away ? As for version 4 by looking at the commits I see that there is still effort. for the maintenance, so if from users point of view there is no interest why they keep it? Probably time spent from core developer to keep it could be used to smx5 whose intent was to to cut a release more quickly then now. >From the other point view, if a structure search a esb solution That truly had value-add. should necessarily use the products listed in this thread. This is IMHO for me is +1 for maintain servicemix brand and servicemix5 Regards --Filippo 2014-02-10 15:42 GMT+01:00 Cristiano Costantini < [email protected]>: > Thank you a lot for the intervention Gert, I care this topic. > > My (non-binding) opinion is that I am "interested in having an Apache > project that is solely about combining ActiveMQ, Camel, CXF, Karaf and a > few other things into a single integration platform distribution" and I add > that it should be still named "ServiceMix" that, as I said, has a sort of > marketing and seo indexing value as a landing point for people searching > for a credible integration platform. > > > If that will be the direction (very simple aggregation of ActiveMQ, Camel, > CXF, Karaf without JBI and NMR), I can try to do something to contribute. > I cannot fully commit yet because I don't know if I'm able to achieve the > expected level of availability and quality, but I'm optimistic on > availability because at the moment we use ServiceMix at work and I would > probably be able to combine some efforts, while I can try to join other > contributors and figure out what is needed to do while they do it. > > Of course, if there is someone more competent than me that is willing to > do, I'll be happy even more and I may focus on other topic (like promoting > karaf as a platform for web application - I'm kind of studying Karaf as the > basis for GWT, Spring Security and Spring MVC web applications) > > Regards, > Cristiano > > > > > 2014-02-10 14:16 GMT+01:00 Gert Vanthienen <[email protected]>: > > > L.S., > > > > > > First of all, thank you for starting this discussion! I definitely > > agree with everything that has already been said on this thread. We > > have been ignoring the important, key question for far too long on our > > mailing lists: Is there a community of users that are interested in > > having an Apache project that is solely about combining ActiveMQ, > > Camel, CXF, Karaf and a few other things into a single integration > > platform distribution? That is the real question we have to answer > > here. > > > > I started updating ServiceMix 4.x to the latest version a while ago, > > but given the large legacy codebase and the number of subprojects that > > we have, that is quite an undertaking. Apart from the JBI itests > > issue, we would also have to get the Features project upgrade done and > > then do all the release. This is why we restarted the ServiceMix 5 > > effort a year ago: to have a single project with just the dependency > > versions to update and then cut a release would be a really great > > thing, compared to the amount of work we now have to do. > > > > It looks like nobody out here is interested in doing all that work on > > the 4.x line and from what I read, the jury is still out on what > > should happen with the ServiceMix 5 effort. There probably is some > > value in this type of distribution to get people started with the > > entire stack of projects more easily, without having to resort to > > vendor-specific solutions like JBoss Fuse, Fabric8, Talend ESB, ... > > from day one. > > > > We really need some people to do the work though. If nobody is > > able/willing to put in the effort, it might be better to look into > > finishing up the project with a bit of style instead of letting it > > slowly die in the background. With a nice announcement, pointing to > > the appropriate documentation on the Camel, CXF, Karaf, ... websites, > > we can definitely get the few people that end up on the ServiceMix > > project website oriented pretty quickly towards a DIY solution > > starting with a plain Karaf installation. > > > > Personally, I'm fine with either solution. I have always personally > > liked the Apache ServiceMix project, so if there's some interest to > > keep doing this, I'll gladly help out there. But on the other hand: > > it's pretty hard to build a community around only a single assembly > > project, so if there's no real interest, I'll gladly work with > > everyone else to draft up a nice announcement and point people towards > > a better solution as well. > > > > Not sure what the best way is to decide this. Perhaps start a vote on > > what to do next? Given the meaning assigned to the different vote > > options on https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html, that might > > give us a good idea about who is actually willing/able to help out, > > but I'm open to any suggestions here. > > > > > > Regards and thanks again for getting this discussion in the open, > > > > Gert Vanthienen > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Gert Vanthienen > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Cristiano Costantini > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > as I'm waiting for Servicemix 4.6.0 to come out because it solves some > > > problems with the version of some bundles, I was wondering if I should > > move > > > to Karaf (2.3.3) instead on using Servicemix as the basis for my > > > application. > > > > > > In fact I use Spring, Pax Web, Camel and CXF, and I'll probably need > > > ActiveMQ if I need to implement some specific EIP. I need many > > dependencies > > > from the servicemix bundles of wrapped dependencies, but I don't other > > > ServiceMix features, especially NMR that I understand from SMX4NMR-319 > is > > > blocking release of 4.6.0. > > > > > > What you suggest me to do? > > > > > > Thank you! > > > Cristiano > > >
