You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@servicemix.apache.org by Raphaël Delaporte <ra...@gmail.com> on 2010/01/06 15:42:49 UTC
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.
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by diwakar <di...@nsn.com>.
Hi Ryan,
>> I actually ran into several backwards compatibility issues
with SMX 4 when deploying SAs that work on SMX3
>> Some of our other projects had the same issues with SMX4 and
moved back to SMX3
Did you succeed in migrating to Servicemix 4.x? Or still using
Servicemix 3.x?
Please let me know your comment.
With Best Regards,
Diwakar
--
View this message in context: http://servicemix.396122.n5.nabble.com/ServiceMix-3-or-4-tp420989p4707363.html
Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
The smx components are JBI AND OSGi compliants. You can deploy it as a
bundle and use it via the service locator or the EndpointExporter. I
made a talk on this during the latest fuse community day. I will
provide the slideshow.
Anyway you use other bundles directly: cxf, camel, pax-web, etc. But
the smx components features are specific (wsdl support, multiple
operations, etc).
Regards
JB
On 6 janv. 2010, at 17:29, Raphaël Delaporte <raphael.delaporte@gmail.co
m> wrote:
> Ok, I agree JBI has nothing to do with OSGi.
> Therefore, are there new SM components that are fully OSGi ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Raphaël
>
>
> 2010/1/6 Ryan Moquin <fr...@gmail.com>
>
>> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> 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 <
>> gregory.le.bonniec@gmail.com>
>>> 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>>>
>>>>> 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:49
>>>>>>> To: <us...@servicemix.apache.org>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> jb@nanthrax.net
>>>>> PGP : 17D4F086
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Chris Custine <ch...@gmail.com>.
The JBI components also contain OSGi bundle manifests. When you deploy
inside SMX4, the container recognizes the OSGi bundle info and deploys them
as native OSGi bundles.
I would also recommend going with SMX4 for any new projects. We are nearing
a ServiceMix 4.1 release and we will be reviewing and adding documentation
so hopefully this will help.
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
2010/1/6 Raphaël Delaporte <ra...@gmail.com>
> Ok, I agree JBI has nothing to do with OSGi.
> Therefore, are there new SM components that are fully OSGi ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Raphaël
>
>
> 2010/1/6 Ryan Moquin <fr...@gmail.com>
>
> > 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > 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 <
> > gregory.le.bonniec@gmail.com>
> > > 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > > >
> > > > > 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:49
> > > > >>> To: <us...@servicemix.apache.org>
> > > > >>> 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
> > > > > jb@nanthrax.net
> > > > > PGP : 17D4F086
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Raphaël Delaporte <ra...@gmail.com>.
Ok, I agree JBI has nothing to do with OSGi.
Therefore, are there new SM components that are fully OSGi ?
Thanks.
Raphaël
2010/1/6 Ryan Moquin <fr...@gmail.com>
> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
>
> > 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 <
> gregory.le.bonniec@gmail.com>
> > 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > >
> > > > 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > > >>
> > > >> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> > > >>> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:49
> > > >>> To: <us...@servicemix.apache.org>
> > > >>> 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
> > > > jb@nanthrax.net
> > > > PGP : 17D4F086
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Ryan Moquin <fr...@gmail.com>.
Sounds good to me, I think that will make things more intuitive.
So then the 2009.02.0-psc-01-00RC1 for the components is an updated version
of the 2009.02.0.0-fuse version? I had seen that and wanted to make sure.
Ryan
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Chris Custine <ch...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
> Yeah, Fuse 4.1.0.x releases are basically bigfixes to the Apache 4.0
> codebase. We are going to clear all of this up with the new Fuse releases
> which will always be numbered consistently with the Apache releases they
> are
> based on. So the 4.1.0-psc-01-00RC1 release you see in our repo will
> roughly match the upcoming Apache 4.1.0 release and Fuse patch releases
> will
> increment the suffix numbers after "psc" only (although we might change the
> psc back to fuse). This way the version numbers on bundles will always be
> version compatible between Apache releases and Fuse. We know that this
> will
> be a bit odd at first considering that we already released Fuse 4.1
> versions, but this will clear these issues up once and for all.
>
> 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 Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Ryan Moquin <fr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 <chris.custine@gmail.com
> > >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 <fr...@gmail.com>
> > > 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > > 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 <
> > > > gregory.le.bonniec@gmail.com>
> > > > > 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:49
> > > > > > >>> To: <us...@servicemix.apache.org>
> > > > > > >>> 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
> > > > > > > jb@nanthrax.net
> > > > > > > PGP : 17D4F086
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Chris Custine <ch...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ryan,
Yeah, Fuse 4.1.0.x releases are basically bigfixes to the Apache 4.0
codebase. We are going to clear all of this up with the new Fuse releases
which will always be numbered consistently with the Apache releases they are
based on. So the 4.1.0-psc-01-00RC1 release you see in our repo will
roughly match the upcoming Apache 4.1.0 release and Fuse patch releases will
increment the suffix numbers after "psc" only (although we might change the
psc back to fuse). This way the version numbers on bundles will always be
version compatible between Apache releases and Fuse. We know that this will
be a bit odd at first considering that we already released Fuse 4.1
versions, but this will clear these issues up once and for all.
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 Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Ryan Moquin <fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <chris.custine@gmail.com
> >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 <fr...@gmail.com>
> > 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > 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 <
> > > gregory.le.bonniec@gmail.com>
> > > > 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:49
> > > > > >>> To: <us...@servicemix.apache.org>
> > > > > >>> 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
> > > > > > jb@nanthrax.net
> > > > > > PGP : 17D4F086
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Ryan Moquin <fr...@gmail.com>.
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 <ch...@gmail.com>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 <fr...@gmail.com>
> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > 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 <
> > gregory.le.bonniec@gmail.com>
> > > 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > > >
> > > > > 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:49
> > > > >>> To: <us...@servicemix.apache.org>
> > > > >>> 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
> > > > > jb@nanthrax.net
> > > > > PGP : 17D4F086
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Chris Custine <ch...@gmail.com>.
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 <fr...@gmail.com> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
>
> > 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 <
> gregory.le.bonniec@gmail.com>
> > 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > >
> > > > 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > > >>
> > > >> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> > > >>> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:49
> > > >>> To: <us...@servicemix.apache.org>
> > > >>> 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
> > > > jb@nanthrax.net
> > > > PGP : 17D4F086
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Ryan Moquin <fr...@gmail.com>.
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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> 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 <gr...@gmail.com>
> 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> >
> > > 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > >>
> > >> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> > >>> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:49
> > >>> To: <us...@servicemix.apache.org>
> > >>> 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
> > > jb@nanthrax.net
> > > PGP : 17D4F086
> > >
> >
>
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Charles Moulliard <cm...@gmail.com>.
OSGI framework is the technology adopted by SMX4 platform to deploy/package
components ans so on. It has nothing to do with JBI specification.
More info here : http://www.osgi.org/About/WhatIsOSGi
Regards,
Charles Moulliard
Senior Enterprise Architect
Apache Camel Committer
*****************************
blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com
twitter : http://twitter.com/cmoulliard
Linkedlin : http://www.linkedin.com/in/charlesmoulliard
Apache Camel Group :
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2447439&trk=anet_ug_hm
2010/1/6 Raphaël Delaporte <ra...@gmail.com>
> 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 <gr...@gmail.com>
> 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> >
> > > 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> > >>
> > >> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> > >>> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:49
> > >>> To: <us...@servicemix.apache.org>
> > >>> 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
> > > jb@nanthrax.net
> > > PGP : 17D4F086
> > >
> >
>
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Raphaël Delaporte <ra...@gmail.com>.
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 <gr...@gmail.com> 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>
> > 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> >>
> >> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> >>> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:49
> >>> To: <us...@servicemix.apache.org>
> >>> 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
> > jb@nanthrax.net
> > PGP : 17D4F086
> >
>
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Grégory Le Bonniec <gr...@gmail.com>.
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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> 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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>>
>> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:49
>>> To: <us...@servicemix.apache.org>
>>> 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
> jb@nanthrax.net
> PGP : 17D4F086
>
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Karolis Petrauskas <k....@gmail.com>.
Thanks!
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> Hi Karolis,
>
> No for now, we don't consider JBI as deprecated. SMX4 offers to you the
> capability to use pure OSGi and/or JBI. You can scramble JBI with OSGi
> using the EndpointExporter.
> The development of the NMR/JBI is very active and will keep on like this for
> a while ;)
>
> Regards
> JB
>
Karolis Petrauskas
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofre <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hi Karolis,
No for now, we don't consider JBI as deprecated. SMX4 offers to you
the capability to use pure OSGi and/or JBI. You can scramble JBI
with OSGi using the EndpointExporter.
The development of the NMR/JBI is very active and will keep on like
this for a while ;)
Regards
JB
On 7 janv. 2010, at 22:10, Karolis Petrauskas <k....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi all.
>
>> 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.
>
> I have a question regarding a road-map of the servicemix. Does the
> quote above means, that the servicemix development team considers JBI
> as an obsolete standard and goes away from it? What will be the main
> direction for this project in next years?
>
> Sincerely,
> Karolis Petrauskas
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Karolis Petrauskas <k....@gmail.com>.
Hi all.
> 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.
I have a question regarding a road-map of the servicemix. Does the
quote above means, that the servicemix development team considers JBI
as an obsolete standard and goes away from it? What will be the main
direction for this project in next years?
Sincerely,
Karolis Petrauskas
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
>
>> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:49
>> To: <us...@servicemix.apache.org>
>> 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
jb@nanthrax.net
PGP : 17D4F086
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Raphaël Delaporte <ra...@gmail.com>.
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 <jb...@nanthrax.net>
> 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 <ra...@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:49
> To: <us...@servicemix.apache.org>
> 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.
>
>
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
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 <ra...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:49
To: <us...@servicemix.apache.org>
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.
Re: ServiceMix 3 or 4 ?
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
It mainly depends if you want to use OSGi and/or JBI.
If you provide JBI SU/SA you can use both smx 3 or 4.
But if you already have some OSGi stuff, you need smx 4.
If you begin from scratch, the best is to start with smx4.
Regards
JB
-----Original Message-----
From: Raphaël Delaporte <ra...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:42:49
To: <us...@servicemix.apache.org>
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.