You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@camel.apache.org by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> on 2017/03/04 08:00:09 UTC
camel-box vs camel-box2
Hi
There is a number of tickets for camel-box
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-9047
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-10753
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-10754
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-10768
And the camel-box is using the old v1 api that is deprecated and will
be turned off in june 2017
https://blogs.dropbox.com/developers/2016/06/api-v1-deprecated/
So we will eventually have a non working camel-box component soon.
So I wonder if we PR for the camel-box2 component
https://github.com/apache/camel/pull/1505
If we should merge that PR, and then
- delete the old camel-box
- rename the new camel-box2 to camel-box
As its based on the api component it should have fairly similar
options so users should not have so much of a problem migration.
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
Re: camel-box vs camel-box2
Posted by Onder SEZGIN <on...@gmail.com>.
hi claus,
as per your previous heads up post,i mentioned i agreed to move deprecated
apis to somewhere as dormant like luca already had suggested. however, this
seems like an obvious deprecation, api will be turned off so the component
will do so. for such cases, i agree your proposition. but for apis that
will not be turned off and has activity but camel community may not be
eager to maintain it, i agree with luca. we can keep them as dormant and
maybe someone may want to paly with it.
cheers
onder
On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 at 08:01, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> There is a number of tickets for camel-box
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-9047
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-10753
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-10754
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-10768
>
> And the camel-box is using the old v1 api that is deprecated and will
> be turned off in june 2017
> https://blogs.dropbox.com/developers/2016/06/api-v1-deprecated/
>
> So we will eventually have a non working camel-box component soon.
>
> So I wonder if we PR for the camel-box2 component
> https://github.com/apache/camel/pull/1505
>
> If we should merge that PR, and then
> - delete the old camel-box
> - rename the new camel-box2 to camel-box
>
> As its based on the api component it should have fairly similar
> options so users should not have so much of a problem migration.
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
>
--
Sent from my iPhone
Re: camel-box vs camel-box2
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
Hi
Okay that was a bit of more work but I managed to delete the old and
rename the new. Just pushed that.
A few more tasks which I logged in a ticket
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-10947
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Okay the camel-box2 PR has been merged. So we can likely go ahead and
> remove the old one, and then rename the new from box2 to box.
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> There is a number of tickets for camel-box
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-9047
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-10753
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-10754
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-10768
>>
>> And the camel-box is using the old v1 api that is deprecated and will
>> be turned off in june 2017
>> https://blogs.dropbox.com/developers/2016/06/api-v1-deprecated/
>>
>> So we will eventually have a non working camel-box component soon.
>>
>> So I wonder if we PR for the camel-box2 component
>> https://github.com/apache/camel/pull/1505
>>
>> If we should merge that PR, and then
>> - delete the old camel-box
>> - rename the new camel-box2 to camel-box
>>
>> As its based on the api component it should have fairly similar
>> options so users should not have so much of a problem migration.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Claus Ibsen
>> -----------------
>> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
>> Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
Re: camel-box vs camel-box2
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
Hi
Okay the camel-box2 PR has been merged. So we can likely go ahead and
remove the old one, and then rename the new from box2 to box.
On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> There is a number of tickets for camel-box
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-9047
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-10753
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-10754
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-10768
>
> And the camel-box is using the old v1 api that is deprecated and will
> be turned off in june 2017
> https://blogs.dropbox.com/developers/2016/06/api-v1-deprecated/
>
> So we will eventually have a non working camel-box component soon.
>
> So I wonder if we PR for the camel-box2 component
> https://github.com/apache/camel/pull/1505
>
> If we should merge that PR, and then
> - delete the old camel-box
> - rename the new camel-box2 to camel-box
>
> As its based on the api component it should have fairly similar
> options so users should not have so much of a problem migration.
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2