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 2012/01/25 12:08:32 UTC
[DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetype for Standalone Java
Hi
Currently we have a maven archetype named: camel-archetype-java
Its however a Spring XML project with a Java RouteBuilder (eg Java DSL).
I would like to propose that we:
a)
Rename camel-archetype-java to camel-archetype-spring-java
b)
Create a new camel-archetype-standalone which is a pure Java
standalone with a Java RouteBuilder
and a Java Main app to start the Camel app from standalone.
This may help out of the box experience with Camel as we got an
archetype for a standalone Camel app.
Also since Camel is not runtime tied to Spring anymore, we should
rename that archetype to spring-java, to indicate
its a Spring project with Camel Java DSL.
Any thoughts?
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
FuseSource
Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetype for Standalone Java
Posted by 3riverdev <br...@3riverdev.com>.
Claus Ibsen-2 wrote
>
> It is *not* trivial for people getting started with Camel to figure out
> how to use a Spring XML file for the regular Spring stuff. And then how
> to add Camel in there, and use the Java DSL.
>
Fully agree with this. We just started multiple new Camel projects w/ the
archetypes. It was confusing when camel-archetype-java created the XML. It
seems useless when all it would contain is a single <package>...</package>
declaration. Having the pure Java version, with a Main, would make more
sense and save newbies some time.
-----
Brett E. Meyer
--
View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Camel-Maven-Archetype-for-Standalone-Java-tp5429924p5444812.html
Sent from the Camel Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetype for Standalone Java
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
Sure you may comment. dev means just that it is about developing camel
not that only committers may participate.
Am 27.01.2012 15:14, schrieb Marco Westermann:
> Hi,
>
> don't know if I'm allowed to comment to this mailing list, but if so:
>
> Next to the spring XML + XML-DSL / Java-DSL which are two archtypes
> there should exist two other archtypes for the equivalent blueprint
> configuration. I think this combination would produce many archtypes
> which are hard to handle and understand for a beginner.
>
> So I support the suggestion of Christian. It would be good to have
> some archtypes to create a new project like
>
> camel-blueprint
> camel-spring
> camel-java-standalone
>
> and then like Christian suggested add features to the project like a
> new route in Java-DSL / XML-DSL and so on. If you then have support
> for that in IDEs like eclipse one can easily built the application he
> needs
That would be really great. The problem is that we currently have no
tool that helps with that. So probably the archetypes have to contain
more than the project start right now.
Christian
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetype for Standalone Java
Posted by Marco Westermann <Ma...@gmx.de>.
Hi,
don't know if I'm allowed to comment to this mailing list, but if so:
Next to the spring XML + XML-DSL / Java-DSL which are two archtypes
there should exist two other archtypes for the equivalent blueprint
configuration. I think this combination would produce many archtypes
which are hard to handle and understand for a beginner.
So I support the suggestion of Christian. It would be good to have some
archtypes to create a new project like
camel-blueprint
camel-spring
camel-java-standalone
and then like Christian suggested add features to the project like a new
route in Java-DSL / XML-DSL and so on. If you then have support for that
in IDEs like eclipse one can easily built the application he needs
If I was not allowed to add my two cents ignore my opinion ;-)
Marco
Am 27.01.2012 14:34, schrieb Christian Schneider:
> Sounds ok to me to have two archetypes then. We should make sure
> people understand the purpose of the different archetypes though.
>
> In my opionion the archetypes are quite unflexible anyway. What we
> really would need is the possibility to add "features" to an existing
> project.
> Like "add a jms component", "add a RouteBuilder with javaDSL", ... a
> bit like spring roo.
>
> Christian
>
>
> Am 27.01.2012 08:01, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Christian Schneider
>> <ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
>>> Am 25.01.2012 14:58, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
>>>
>>>> It is *not* trivial for people getting started with Camel to figure
>>>> out how to use a Spring XML file for the regular Spring stuff.
>>>> And then how to add Camel in there, and use the Java DSL.
>>>>
>>>> As you need to add<package>com.foo</package> or use a
>>>> <routeBuilderRef> etc. to link the Spring XML file to the Java
>>>> RouteBuilder.
>>>>
>>>> There are two kind of people getting started with Camel.
>>>>
>>>> 1) People who would avoid Java code and do as much in XML
>>>> 2) People wo are more savy coders and want to use Java code, but
>>>> Spring XML for their bean configuration.
>>>>
>>>> If you have a single archetype for 1+2 then it *confuses people*.
>>>>
>>> What I meant is that it is easy to add a camel route to a spring
>>> config when
>>> the camel context is already defined as a bean.
>>> So if people have an archetype that uses a camel context in spring
>>> and a
>>> Java route builder then adding an xml route
>>> is easy and removing the a java route builder is also easy. We could
>>> even
>>> define a route in java and another in xml to show both cases
>>> in the same archetype.
>>>
>> IMHO this will confuse people. Best practice is that people either do
>> routes in Java only, or XML only.
>> Not really a mix of both worlds.
>>
>> The archetype is a great way for people getting started with Camel,
>> and for end users, to quickly create a new Camel project.
>>
>> All they need to remember is to type
>> mvn archetype:generate
>> and then follow the instructions.
>>
>> The problem with an archetype that does both, is like some of our
>> examples, they have too much in the same example.
>> Then people do not know how to differentiate what is what. And why the
>> pom.xml file has so many dependencies, or different moving parts etc.
>>
>> People will also be "afraid" what to remove? And how to do that. As
>> you would need to modify both XML and java source code to remove it
>> completely etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>> In my experience it is much easier for people to delete unneeded
>>> parts than
>>> adding new parts. So that could work.
>>>
>> Only for experienced developers. For people getting started, they do
>> not know what to do and what to remove etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christian Schneider
>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>>
>>> Open Source Architect
>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetype for Standalone Java
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Christian Schneider
<ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> Sounds ok to me to have two archetypes then. We should make sure people
> understand the purpose of the different archetypes though.
>
> In my opionion the archetypes are quite unflexible anyway. What we really
> would need is the possibility to add "features" to an existing project.
> Like "add a jms component", "add a RouteBuilder with javaDSL", ... a bit
> like spring roo.
>
Yeah that is a Maven issue, that the archetypes, can only be sort of
used for creating an initial project.
And they are in-light of "ruby on rails / grails / roo " shells, seems
very inflexible. But thats the best we got with Maven.
Yeah it would be nice with a kind of "roo" shell for developing Java
applications, that is Maven based, and has a plugin system.
However many IDE have wizards for doing certain tasks, such as web
services / REST / JDBC etc. So there is some tooling there.
However that said, I think we should have an archetype for creating a
plain Java based project, and thus camel-archetype-java, should be
changed to that.
I will log a JIRA.
> Christian
>
>
> Am 27.01.2012 08:01, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Christian Schneider
>> <ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 25.01.2012 14:58, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
>>>
>>>> It is *not* trivial for people getting started with Camel to figure
>>>> out how to use a Spring XML file for the regular Spring stuff.
>>>> And then how to add Camel in there, and use the Java DSL.
>>>>
>>>> As you need to add<package>com.foo</package> or use a
>>>> <routeBuilderRef> etc. to link the Spring XML file to the Java
>>>> RouteBuilder.
>>>>
>>>> There are two kind of people getting started with Camel.
>>>>
>>>> 1) People who would avoid Java code and do as much in XML
>>>> 2) People wo are more savy coders and want to use Java code, but
>>>> Spring XML for their bean configuration.
>>>>
>>>> If you have a single archetype for 1+2 then it *confuses people*.
>>>>
>>> What I meant is that it is easy to add a camel route to a spring config
>>> when
>>> the camel context is already defined as a bean.
>>> So if people have an archetype that uses a camel context in spring and a
>>> Java route builder then adding an xml route
>>> is easy and removing the a java route builder is also easy. We could even
>>> define a route in java and another in xml to show both cases
>>> in the same archetype.
>>>
>> IMHO this will confuse people. Best practice is that people either do
>> routes in Java only, or XML only.
>> Not really a mix of both worlds.
>>
>> The archetype is a great way for people getting started with Camel,
>> and for end users, to quickly create a new Camel project.
>>
>> All they need to remember is to type
>> mvn archetype:generate
>> and then follow the instructions.
>>
>> The problem with an archetype that does both, is like some of our
>> examples, they have too much in the same example.
>> Then people do not know how to differentiate what is what. And why the
>> pom.xml file has so many dependencies, or different moving parts etc.
>>
>> People will also be "afraid" what to remove? And how to do that. As
>> you would need to modify both XML and java source code to remove it
>> completely etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>> In my experience it is much easier for people to delete unneeded parts
>>> than
>>> adding new parts. So that could work.
>>>
>> Only for experienced developers. For people getting started, they do
>> not know what to do and what to remove etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christian Schneider
>>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>>
>>> Open Source Architect
>>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> Open Source Architect
> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
FuseSource
Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetype for Standalone Java
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
Sounds ok to me to have two archetypes then. We should make sure people
understand the purpose of the different archetypes though.
In my opionion the archetypes are quite unflexible anyway. What we
really would need is the possibility to add "features" to an existing
project.
Like "add a jms component", "add a RouteBuilder with javaDSL", ... a bit
like spring roo.
Christian
Am 27.01.2012 08:01, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Christian Schneider
> <ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
>> Am 25.01.2012 14:58, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
>>
>>> It is *not* trivial for people getting started with Camel to figure
>>> out how to use a Spring XML file for the regular Spring stuff.
>>> And then how to add Camel in there, and use the Java DSL.
>>>
>>> As you need to add<package>com.foo</package> or use a
>>> <routeBuilderRef> etc. to link the Spring XML file to the Java
>>> RouteBuilder.
>>>
>>> There are two kind of people getting started with Camel.
>>>
>>> 1) People who would avoid Java code and do as much in XML
>>> 2) People wo are more savy coders and want to use Java code, but
>>> Spring XML for their bean configuration.
>>>
>>> If you have a single archetype for 1+2 then it *confuses people*.
>>>
>> What I meant is that it is easy to add a camel route to a spring config when
>> the camel context is already defined as a bean.
>> So if people have an archetype that uses a camel context in spring and a
>> Java route builder then adding an xml route
>> is easy and removing the a java route builder is also easy. We could even
>> define a route in java and another in xml to show both cases
>> in the same archetype.
>>
> IMHO this will confuse people. Best practice is that people either do
> routes in Java only, or XML only.
> Not really a mix of both worlds.
>
> The archetype is a great way for people getting started with Camel,
> and for end users, to quickly create a new Camel project.
>
> All they need to remember is to type
> mvn archetype:generate
> and then follow the instructions.
>
> The problem with an archetype that does both, is like some of our
> examples, they have too much in the same example.
> Then people do not know how to differentiate what is what. And why the
> pom.xml file has so many dependencies, or different moving parts etc.
>
> People will also be "afraid" what to remove? And how to do that. As
> you would need to modify both XML and java source code to remove it
> completely etc.
>
>
>
>> In my experience it is much easier for people to delete unneeded parts than
>> adding new parts. So that could work.
>>
> Only for experienced developers. For people getting started, they do
> not know what to do and what to remove etc.
>
>
>
>> Christian
>>
>> --
>> Christian Schneider
>> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>>
>> Open Source Architect
>> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>>
>
>
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetype for Standalone Java
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Christian Schneider
<ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> Am 25.01.2012 14:58, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
>
>>
>> It is *not* trivial for people getting started with Camel to figure
>> out how to use a Spring XML file for the regular Spring stuff.
>> And then how to add Camel in there, and use the Java DSL.
>>
>> As you need to add<package>com.foo</package> or use a
>> <routeBuilderRef> etc. to link the Spring XML file to the Java
>> RouteBuilder.
>>
>> There are two kind of people getting started with Camel.
>>
>> 1) People who would avoid Java code and do as much in XML
>> 2) People wo are more savy coders and want to use Java code, but
>> Spring XML for their bean configuration.
>>
>> If you have a single archetype for 1+2 then it *confuses people*.
>>
>
> What I meant is that it is easy to add a camel route to a spring config when
> the camel context is already defined as a bean.
> So if people have an archetype that uses a camel context in spring and a
> Java route builder then adding an xml route
> is easy and removing the a java route builder is also easy. We could even
> define a route in java and another in xml to show both cases
> in the same archetype.
>
IMHO this will confuse people. Best practice is that people either do
routes in Java only, or XML only.
Not really a mix of both worlds.
The archetype is a great way for people getting started with Camel,
and for end users, to quickly create a new Camel project.
All they need to remember is to type
mvn archetype:generate
and then follow the instructions.
The problem with an archetype that does both, is like some of our
examples, they have too much in the same example.
Then people do not know how to differentiate what is what. And why the
pom.xml file has so many dependencies, or different moving parts etc.
People will also be "afraid" what to remove? And how to do that. As
you would need to modify both XML and java source code to remove it
completely etc.
> In my experience it is much easier for people to delete unneeded parts than
> adding new parts. So that could work.
>
Only for experienced developers. For people getting started, they do
not know what to do and what to remove etc.
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> Open Source Architect
> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
FuseSource
Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetype for Standalone Java
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
Am 25.01.2012 14:58, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
>
> It is *not* trivial for people getting started with Camel to figure
> out how to use a Spring XML file for the regular Spring stuff.
> And then how to add Camel in there, and use the Java DSL.
>
> As you need to add<package>com.foo</package> or use a
> <routeBuilderRef> etc. to link the Spring XML file to the Java
> RouteBuilder.
>
> There are two kind of people getting started with Camel.
>
> 1) People who would avoid Java code and do as much in XML
> 2) People wo are more savy coders and want to use Java code, but
> Spring XML for their bean configuration.
>
> If you have a single archetype for 1+2 then it *confuses people*.
>
What I meant is that it is easy to add a camel route to a spring config
when the camel context is already defined as a bean.
So if people have an archetype that uses a camel context in spring and a
Java route builder then adding an xml route
is easy and removing the a java route builder is also easy. We could
even define a route in java and another in xml to show both cases
in the same archetype.
In my experience it is much easier for people to delete unneeded parts
than adding new parts. So that could work.
Christian
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetype for Standalone Java
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Christian Schneider
<ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> Am 25.01.2012 14:15, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Christian Schneider
>> <ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 25.01.2012 12:08, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Currently we have a maven archetype named: camel-archetype-java
>>>> Its however a Spring XML project with a Java RouteBuilder (eg Java DSL).
>>>>
>>>> I would like to propose that we:
>>>>
>>>> a)
>>>> Rename camel-archetype-java to camel-archetype-spring-java
>>>>
>>>> b)
>>>> Create a new camel-archetype-standalone which is a pure Java
>>>> standalone with a Java RouteBuilder
>>>> and a Java Main app to start the Camel app from standalone.
>>>
>>> I would rather name it camel-archetype-standalone-java or
>>> camel-archetype-java-standalone.
>>>
>> Yeah or may as Bilgin suggest, we could just keep camel-archetype-java
>> as the pure Java archetype.
>> Its kinda indicated by its name.
>>
>> btw the difference between camel-archetype-spring-java and
>> camel-archetype-spring, would be that the both use Spring XML, but the
>> former has a Camel route in Java DSL, and the latter a Camel route in
>> XML DSL.
>
> I would not create two archetypes for that. If you define the camel context
> in spring it is trivial to add routes to it.
> So I would have a Java Routebuilder in the spring archetype and people who
> do not want it can simple delete it. Having two archetypes
> will rather confuse people.
>
It is *not* trivial for people getting started with Camel to figure
out how to use a Spring XML file for the regular Spring stuff.
And then how to add Camel in there, and use the Java DSL.
As you need to add <package>com.foo</package> or use a
<routeBuilderRef> etc. to link the Spring XML file to the Java
RouteBuilder.
There are two kind of people getting started with Camel.
1) People who would avoid Java code and do as much in XML
2) People wo are more savy coders and want to use Java code, but
Spring XML for their bean configuration.
If you have a single archetype for 1+2 then it *confuses people*.
> Christian
>
>
> --
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> Open Source Architect
> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
FuseSource
Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetype for Standalone Java
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
Am 25.01.2012 14:15, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Christian Schneider
> <ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
>> Am 25.01.2012 12:08, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Currently we have a maven archetype named: camel-archetype-java
>>> Its however a Spring XML project with a Java RouteBuilder (eg Java DSL).
>>>
>>> I would like to propose that we:
>>>
>>> a)
>>> Rename camel-archetype-java to camel-archetype-spring-java
>>>
>>> b)
>>> Create a new camel-archetype-standalone which is a pure Java
>>> standalone with a Java RouteBuilder
>>> and a Java Main app to start the Camel app from standalone.
>> I would rather name it camel-archetype-standalone-java or
>> camel-archetype-java-standalone.
>>
> Yeah or may as Bilgin suggest, we could just keep camel-archetype-java
> as the pure Java archetype.
> Its kinda indicated by its name.
>
> btw the difference between camel-archetype-spring-java and
> camel-archetype-spring, would be that the both use Spring XML, but the
> former has a Camel route in Java DSL, and the latter a Camel route in
> XML DSL.
I would not create two archetypes for that. If you define the camel
context in spring it is trivial to add routes to it.
So I would have a Java Routebuilder in the spring archetype and people
who do not want it can simple delete it. Having two archetypes
will rather confuse people.
Christian
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetype for Standalone Java
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Christian Schneider
<ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> Am 25.01.2012 12:08, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Currently we have a maven archetype named: camel-archetype-java
>> Its however a Spring XML project with a Java RouteBuilder (eg Java DSL).
>>
>> I would like to propose that we:
>>
>> a)
>> Rename camel-archetype-java to camel-archetype-spring-java
>>
>> b)
>> Create a new camel-archetype-standalone which is a pure Java
>> standalone with a Java RouteBuilder
>> and a Java Main app to start the Camel app from standalone.
>
> I would rather name it camel-archetype-standalone-java or
> camel-archetype-java-standalone.
>
Yeah or may as Bilgin suggest, we could just keep camel-archetype-java
as the pure Java archetype.
Its kinda indicated by its name.
btw the difference between camel-archetype-spring-java and
camel-archetype-spring, would be that the both use Spring XML, but the
former has a Camel route in Java DSL, and the latter a Camel route in
XML DSL.
> For a real standalone project we should also add an assembly config so the
> result is a project that can be really deployed standlone.
> Many people struggle with deploying standalone projects as the assembly
> concept is not so easy to grasp and implement.
>
You mean that the assembly builds a JAR you can run from the command line?
eg it has class-path configured in its MANIFEST.MF file?
So you can do java -jar foo.jar
Yeah if that is possible, then that would be nice.
> Christian
>
>>
>>
>> This may help out of the box experience with Camel as we got an
>> archetype for a standalone Camel app.
>> Also since Camel is not runtime tied to Spring anymore, we should
>> rename that archetype to spring-java, to indicate
>> its a Spring project with Camel Java DSL.
>>
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> Open Source Architect
> Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
>
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
FuseSource
Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetype for Standalone Java
Posted by Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>.
Am 25.01.2012 12:08, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
> Hi
>
> Currently we have a maven archetype named: camel-archetype-java
> Its however a Spring XML project with a Java RouteBuilder (eg Java DSL).
>
> I would like to propose that we:
>
> a)
> Rename camel-archetype-java to camel-archetype-spring-java
>
> b)
> Create a new camel-archetype-standalone which is a pure Java
> standalone with a Java RouteBuilder
> and a Java Main app to start the Camel app from standalone.
I would rather name it camel-archetype-standalone-java or
camel-archetype-java-standalone.
For a real standalone project we should also add an assembly config so
the result is a project that can be really deployed standlone.
Many people struggle with deploying standalone projects as the assembly
concept is not so easy to grasp and implement.
Christian
>
>
> This may help out of the box experience with Camel as we got an
> archetype for a standalone Camel app.
> Also since Camel is not runtime tied to Spring anymore, we should
> rename that archetype to spring-java, to indicate
> its a Spring project with Camel Java DSL.
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetype for Standalone Java
Posted by Bilgin Ibryam <bi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Claus,
On 25 January 2012 11:08, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Currently we have a maven archetype named: camel-archetype-java
> Its however a Spring XML project with a Java RouteBuilder (eg Java DSL).
>
I liked the idea to have a standalone archetype without any spring
> I would like to propose that we:
>
> a)
> Rename camel-archetype-java to camel-archetype-spring-java
what will the difference between camel-archetype-spring-java and
existing camel-archetype-spring
>
> b)
> Create a new camel-archetype-standalone which is a pure Java
> standalone with a Java RouteBuilder
> and a Java Main app to start the Camel app from standalone.
It is fine for me, just not sure about the name. Aren't there also
other archetypes (for example scala) which are standalone?Why not only
camel-archetype-java
my 2c
Bilgin
>
>
> This may help out of the box experience with Camel as we got an
> archetype for a standalone Camel app.
> Also since Camel is not runtime tied to Spring anymore, we should
> rename that archetype to spring-java, to indicate
> its a Spring project with Camel Java DSL.
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> -----------------
> FuseSource
> Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
> Web: http://fusesource.com
> Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetype for Standalone Java
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Babak Vahdat
<ba...@swissonline.ch> wrote:
> Hi
>
> a) Makes sense to me as the DSL there is in Java however the execution is
> through "mvn camel:run" which makes use of [1] to launch the IoC-stuff of
> Spring.
>
> b) Would be nice to provide such a one with *pure* Java-DSL & Java-Wiring
> (No Spring). And then folks would start up Camel through using either "maven
> exec:java" or directly inside their IDE.
>
Yeah (b) is for the camel-archetype-java (or what we call the pure
Java archetype).
For example using mvn exec:java as we do for the scala archetype, to
bootup Camel as a main app.
> [1]
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/camel/trunk/tooling/maven/camel-maven-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/camel/maven/EmbeddedMojo.java
> [2] http://mojo.codehaus.org/exec-maven-plugin/java-mojo.html
>
> Babak
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Camel-Maven-Archetype-for-Standalone-Java-tp5429924p5430176.html
> Sent from the Camel Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
FuseSource
Email: cibsen@fusesource.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
Re: [DISCUSS] - Camel Maven Archetype for Standalone Java
Posted by Babak Vahdat <ba...@swissonline.ch>.
Hi
a) Makes sense to me as the DSL there is in Java however the execution is
through "mvn camel:run" which makes use of [1] to launch the IoC-stuff of
Spring.
b) Would be nice to provide such a one with *pure* Java-DSL & Java-Wiring
(No Spring). And then folks would start up Camel through using either "maven
exec:java" or directly inside their IDE.
[1]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/camel/trunk/tooling/maven/camel-maven-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/camel/maven/EmbeddedMojo.java
[2] http://mojo.codehaus.org/exec-maven-plugin/java-mojo.html
Babak
--
View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Camel-Maven-Archetype-for-Standalone-Java-tp5429924p5430176.html
Sent from the Camel Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.