You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@camel.apache.org by Kay <se...@gmail.com> on 2016/01/14 07:37:15 UTC
A silly idea?
Hello, I'm new to this forum, but I've used camel for a long time. ( as a
matter of fact, I can't imagine the thing that I am able to do my java
project without camel ). Anyway, a question teased me whenever I use Camel.
The question was "why is there no base framework for only camel?" In the
other word, I believe it would be better if there was a certain
light-weighted environment supporing camel with some better functionalities
like concurrency, extensibility, hot deploy. So, when I told my colleague
about this idea, he replied, "Use zookeeper for failure tolerance, use OSGI
for hot deploy, use Storm or Spark for data distribution. You don't need to
build another similar thing for your own purpose." But I can't make certain
with his words because I can't understand the reason why I should control so
many applications for my project. I just want a light-weighted all-in-one
package. Is building such an all-in-one package for camel a silly idea? How
do you think about that?
--
View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/A-silly-idea-tp5776224.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: A silly idea?
Posted by Kay <se...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for all of your comments, and I've read them carefully. Yes, I agree
Karaf is an awesome framework to use hot deployment, and Spring is nice too,
and even all the things that I've written on my first thread were extra
functionalities, camel don't need to support. The first reason why I've
looked into this problem is needs to reduce risks in real project. If I use
tons of open sources for project's needs, and no matter how I've kept using
them correctly. it may cause another learn problem to unskilled
engineers(most ones whom I have to meet normally in a project), and make a
new maintenance problem too, and these problems always have led to the
result which costs much more money, and efforts as I've expected. The second
reason is the thing that I don't want to make my application becomes heavy
with many additional libs. The last reason is the thing that I want a simple
and light-weighted application architecture which satisfy general
requirements of current like failure tolerance, distributed processing, hot
deployment, and etc. I believe it'll be the most beautiful one if I can
control all of services on a simple and tiny clustered environment. In this
kind of view, I'm a little surprised with Khai's comment, your application
is very similar to what I've imagined. Is it public open source or not?
Could I see them?
--
View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/A-silly-idea-tp5776224p5776267.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: A silly idea?
Posted by Khai Nguyen <kh...@gmail.com>.
I have been using Camel at work for sometimes and I love Camel.
Here, we think about Camel having 2 pieces: *component* (I use this term
loosely to mean non-route) which is written only in code and *route* which
could be written in any particular DSL (groovy, java, xml,...).
The component is fixed in term of deployment. The route becomes the hot
deploy unit. You can do
1. OSGI if your route is in java DSL or any JVM language, because it is
a jar now.
2. A simple route deployer if your route is in XML or Groovy.
3. ...
Our application is just a simple java application with /lib and /route
directories and a shell script to run the main method.
We wrote a maven archetype to generate our standard minimal (cuz we don't
want to ship 1GB of useless jar) camel project. Then you add more
components depend on what your application have to do. Then we ship the
application.
Camel, at core, is just a integration library allows you to send
datas/commands/requests from a endpoint to a endpoint(s).
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:40 AM Christian Schneider <
chris@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> The problem is that people have different requirements for the runtime.
> For example the hot deployment is a reason to choose OSGi but not everyone
> needs that.
>
> You should have a look at Apache Karaf. It might provide just the
> environment you search for.
>
> I got a tutorial that shows how to deploy your camel integrations to Apache
> Karaf. It is quite simple and straight forward.
>
> http://www.liquid-reality.de/display/liquid/2012/01/03/Karaf+Tutorial+Part+5+-+Running+Apache+Camel+integrations+in+OSGi
>
> Btw. I just noticed that my tutorial covers a quite ancient version of
> karaf. I will update it for the new karaf 4 command syntax.
>
> There are also some offerings from companies that build on Apache Karaf and
> provide some add on functionality like
> Talend ESB or Jboss Fuse. You can do most things with just the open source
> version though.
>
> Christian
>
> 2016-01-14 7:37 GMT+01:00 Kay <se...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hello, I'm new to this forum, but I've used camel for a long time. ( as a
> > matter of fact, I can't imagine the thing that I am able to do my java
> > project without camel ). Anyway, a question teased me whenever I use
> Camel.
> > The question was "why is there no base framework for only camel?" In the
> > other word, I believe it would be better if there was a certain
> > light-weighted environment supporing camel with some better
> functionalities
> > like concurrency, extensibility, hot deploy. So, when I told my colleague
> > about this idea, he replied, "Use zookeeper for failure tolerance, use
> OSGI
> > for hot deploy, use Storm or Spark for data distribution. You don't need
> to
> > build another similar thing for your own purpose." But I can't make
> certain
> > with his words because I can't understand the reason why I should control
> > so
> > many applications for my project. I just want a light-weighted all-in-one
> > package. Is building such an all-in-one package for camel a silly idea?
> How
> > do you think about that?
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/A-silly-idea-tp5776224.html
> > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
> <
> https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.liquid-reality.de
> >
>
> Open Source Architect
> http://www.talend.com
> <
> https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.talend.com
> >
>
Re: A silly idea?
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
The problem is that people have different requirements for the runtime.
For example the hot deployment is a reason to choose OSGi but not everyone
needs that.
You should have a look at Apache Karaf. It might provide just the
environment you search for.
I got a tutorial that shows how to deploy your camel integrations to Apache
Karaf. It is quite simple and straight forward.
http://www.liquid-reality.de/display/liquid/2012/01/03/Karaf+Tutorial+Part+5+-+Running+Apache+Camel+integrations+in+OSGi
Btw. I just noticed that my tutorial covers a quite ancient version of
karaf. I will update it for the new karaf 4 command syntax.
There are also some offerings from companies that build on Apache Karaf and
provide some add on functionality like
Talend ESB or Jboss Fuse. You can do most things with just the open source
version though.
Christian
2016-01-14 7:37 GMT+01:00 Kay <se...@gmail.com>:
> Hello, I'm new to this forum, but I've used camel for a long time. ( as a
> matter of fact, I can't imagine the thing that I am able to do my java
> project without camel ). Anyway, a question teased me whenever I use Camel.
> The question was "why is there no base framework for only camel?" In the
> other word, I believe it would be better if there was a certain
> light-weighted environment supporing camel with some better functionalities
> like concurrency, extensibility, hot deploy. So, when I told my colleague
> about this idea, he replied, "Use zookeeper for failure tolerance, use OSGI
> for hot deploy, use Storm or Spark for data distribution. You don't need to
> build another similar thing for your own purpose." But I can't make certain
> with his words because I can't understand the reason why I should control
> so
> many applications for my project. I just want a light-weighted all-in-one
> package. Is building such an all-in-one package for camel a silly idea? How
> do you think about that?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/A-silly-idea-tp5776224.html
> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
<https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.liquid-reality.de>
Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com
<https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.talend.com>
Re: A silly idea?
Posted by Henryk Konsek <he...@gmail.com>.
Hi Kay,
Those extra functionalities are outside the scope of the Camel. This is
usually where higher level runtime frameworks/servers like Spring Boot,
Karaf, etc. kicks in. So just choose the right runtime for your purposes
(I personally prefer Spring Boot) and use Camel integration module
dedicated for this runtime (like camel-spring-boot).
Cheers!
czw., 14.01.2016 o 07:37 użytkownik Kay <se...@gmail.com> napisał:
> Hello, I'm new to this forum, but I've used camel for a long time. ( as a
> matter of fact, I can't imagine the thing that I am able to do my java
> project without camel ). Anyway, a question teased me whenever I use Camel.
> The question was "why is there no base framework for only camel?" In the
> other word, I believe it would be better if there was a certain
> light-weighted environment supporing camel with some better functionalities
> like concurrency, extensibility, hot deploy. So, when I told my colleague
> about this idea, he replied, "Use zookeeper for failure tolerance, use OSGI
> for hot deploy, use Storm or Spark for data distribution. You don't need to
> build another similar thing for your own purpose." But I can't make certain
> with his words because I can't understand the reason why I should control
> so
> many applications for my project. I just want a light-weighted all-in-one
> package. Is building such an all-in-one package for camel a silly idea? How
> do you think about that?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/A-silly-idea-tp5776224.html
> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
Henryk Konsek
http://about.me/hekonsek