The archetype doesn't do much but I wanted to try and keep it so people can just create the basics - and mainly so I can reference it on the documentation as a quick way to get a project in the right shape?
I wanted to keep the servicemix.xml in the resources as per the maven standard directory structure. P On 8/4/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not sure for the artifact. There aren't much to do in an archetype, just reference the needed components afaik. And for the default location, i would have tought to look for it in the current dir, but ... it will be configurable on the plugin, so it's not a big deal. On 8/4/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do you think its worth creating an architype thats creates a project > set-up > for embedded to run? Also i had originally specified the default location > of the servicemix.xml as src/main/resources/servicemix.xml? > > P > > On 8/4/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The new goal was something I started, I should be able to finish it up > > and try and get it back in today :) > > > > > > P > > > > On 8/4/06, Guillaume Nodet < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Also, for examples not using the std JBI packaging, I though that we > > > could > > > have a new goal in the > > > maven plugin to start a servicemix with a given configuration > > > file. That > > > way, all samples would download > > > the needed dependencies via maven, and start servicemix by running > > > something > > > like > > > mvn jbi:embedded > > > which would launch a servicemix configured by a servicemix.xml file in > > > the > > > root dir. > > > > > > The only problem is that examples sometimes need a client which must > be > > > compiled and launched ... > > > > > > On 8/4/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm currently in the process of refactoring / documenting the > examples > > > > that ship with ServiceMix distribution. > > > > ServiceMix has a large set of bindings, service engines (both > standard > > > and > > > > lightweight), but I have the feeling > > > > that we can not put thousands examples in the distribution. > > > > I'd rather go with fewer, better documented examples, which would > show > > > > > > > more complex deployments (compared > > > > to a simple file-poller / file-writer example), and have more > examples > > > / > > > > use cases on the web site only (with only the servicemix.xmlconfig > > > file > > > > to show how to do something). > > > > > > > > I have began to write 2 new examples using the maven jbi tooling, so > > > we > > > > now have 3 of this kind: > > > > * loan-broker (using servicemix-bpe, servicemix-lwcontainer) need > to > > > be > > > > completed with some binding > > > > * bridge (see > > > > http://servicemix.goopen.org/site/creating-a-protocol-bridge.html) > > > (need > > > > to write a jms receiver of some kind > > > > * wsdl-first (using servicemix-http, servicemix-jsr181) > > > > we also have the servicemix-web webapp which demonstrates embedding > > > > servicemix in a web app > > > > and I have just moved to the sandbox the following samples: > > > > * soap-binding (superseeded by wsdl-first) > > > > * http-binding > > > > * jms-binding > > > > * bpel-bpe (rewritten as loan-broker) > > > > * loan-broker (which only use properties so i don' t think it was > a > > > good > > > > example) > > > > > > > > Any thoughts ? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Cheers, > > > > Guillaume Nodet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Cheers, > > > Guillaume Nodet > > > > > > > > > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet
