osdir.com

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A "Kamel" crazy idea


---
Luca Burgazzoli


On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In order to actually start the route, I forgot to add the required
> parameter:
>
> gnodet•camel/platforms/graalvm*(*graalvm*)*»
> ./example/target/org.apache.camel.graalvm.main -r
> org.apache.camel.graalvm.example.SimpleCamelRouteBuilder
>
> [main] INFO org.apache.camel.graalvm.FastCamelContext - Apache Camel
> 2.23.0-SNAPSHOT (CamelContext: camel-1) is starting
>
> [main] INFO org.apache.camel.graalvm.FastCamelContext - StreamCaching is
> not in use. If using streams then its recommended to enable stream caching.
> See more details at http://camel.apache.org/stream-caching.html
>
> [main] INFO org.apache.camel.graalvm.FastCamelContext - Route: route1
> started and consuming from: file://./target/orders
>
> [main] INFO org.apache.camel.graalvm.FastCamelContext - Total 1 routes, of
> which 1 are started
>
> [main] INFO org.apache.camel.graalvm.FastCamelContext - Apache Camel
> 2.23.0-SNAPSHOT (CamelContext: camel-1) started in 0.012 seconds
>
> Note that the binary is quite big: 26 Mb. One of the reason is that it
> contains the whole camel-core code.  This is because the components /
> languages / dataformats are loaded dynamically, so the graalvm tool has to
> be informed of the implementation classes that can be discovered.
> Currently, all of them from camel-core are included, but I think a better
> way would be to discover them through the route model and only include the
> ones that are needed.  I'll work on that.
>

I guess it can also be a job for a maven plugin to include only what
is listed as dependency. We need to move all the core components out
of camel-core of course but this is also a goal for camel 3 :)

> Le jeu. 2 août 2018 à 00:18, Luca Burgazzoli <lburgazzoli@xxxxxxxxx> a
> écrit :
>
>> That’s very nice start, thx Guillaume
>>
>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 20:15, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > I've pushed a branch with graalvm experiments.
>> >    https://github.com/apache/camel/tree/graalvm
>> > In order to build the project, you need to use the GraalVM jdk and use
>> the
>> > following ~/.m2/toolchains.xml adapted to your path:
>> >
>> > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF8"?>
>> >
>> > <toolchains>
>> >
>> >   <toolchain>
>> >
>> >     <type>jdk</type>
>> >
>> >     <provides>
>> >
>> >       <version>1.0.0-rc4</version>
>> >
>> >       <vendor>oracle</vendor>
>> >
>> >       <id>graalvm-ee-1.0.0-rc4</id>
>> >
>> >     </provides>
>> >
>> >     <configuration>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> <jdkHome>/Users/gnodet/Downloads/graalvm-ee-1.0.0-rc4/Contents/Home/</jdkHome>
>> >
>> >     </configuration>
>> >
>> >   </toolchain>
>> >
>> > </toolchains>
>> >
>> > Build and run:
>> >  gnodet•camel*(*graalvm*)*» cd platforms/graalvm
>> >  gnodet•camel/platforms/graalvm*(*graalvm*)*» mvn install
>> > ...
>> >  gnodet•camel/platforms/graalvm*(*graalvm*)*»
>> > ./example/target/org.apache.camel.graalvm.main
>> >
>> > [main] INFO org.apache.camel.graalvm.FastCamelContext - Apache Camel
>> > 2.23.0-SNAPSHOT (CamelContext: camel-1) is starting
>> >
>> > [main] INFO org.apache.camel.graalvm.FastCamelContext - StreamCaching is
>> > not in use. If using streams then its recommended to enable stream
>> caching.
>> > See more details at http://camel.apache.org/stream-caching.html
>> >
>> > [main] INFO org.apache.camel.graalvm.FastCamelContext - Total 0 routes,
>> of
>> > which 0 are started
>> >
>> > [main] INFO org.apache.camel.graalvm.FastCamelContext - Apache Camel
>> > 2.23.0-SNAPSHOT (CamelContext: camel-1) started in 0.006 seconds
>> >
>> >  Guillaume
>> >
>> > Le mar. 31 juil. 2018 à 09:44, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@xxxxxxxxxx> a
>> > écrit :
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Le lun. 30 juil. 2018 à 17:49, Nicola Ferraro <ni.ferraro@xxxxxxxxx> a
>> > > écrit :
>> > >
>> > >> Hi Cameleers,
>> > >> it seems from the comments that this "Kamel" subproject is something
>> we
>> > >> want to start and I think that also the main camel core will benefit
>> > from
>> > >> the new features it will bring.
>> > >>
>> > >> I would like to donate the current "Kamel" code to Apache Camel, in
>> > order
>> > >> to have a initial brick to start from.
>> > >>
>> > >> From your reactions, the name "Kamel" seems cool and I'd like to keep
>> > it.
>> > >> However if you talk to people about the "Kamel" project, they won't
>> > >> understand if you're talking about "Kamel with the K" or "Camel with
>> the
>> > >> C".
>> > >> For this reasons I propose to keep "Kamel", but also use "Camel K"
>> > [ˈkæməl
>> > >> keɪ] as friendly name when talking about it. This is in line with the
>> > >> repository we should create for the subproject, that needs to start
>> with
>> > >> "camel-" (it will be "apache/camel-k" in that case).
>> > >>
>> > >> These days I've been experimenting different ideas with Luca
>> Burgazzoli.
>> > >> In
>> > >> particular, there have been some concerns here on the power of a
>> > >> declarative DSL (a new one or the existing XML one) and we've found a
>> > >> strategy that will allow us to use also the Java DSL in Kamel
>> > >> integrations.
>> > >> Without adding too many details here, at integration build time we can
>> > run
>> > >> the user code in a build container and inspect the produced routes to
>> > get
>> > >> metadata for the optimizer. This is one of the first things we should
>> do
>> > >> next.
>> > >>
>> > >> This possibility of running code that produces integrations opened a
>> lot
>> > >> of
>> > >> unexpected paths, that I've written down in the project roadmap (
>> > >> https://github.com/nicolaferraro/integration-operator) and summarized
>> > >> below.
>> > >>
>> > >> One nice feature (kudos to Luca) is that we can simplify life for
>> Kamel
>> > >> users up to the point that they'll just need to write their routes on
>> a
>> > >> Java file and run them with e.g.:
>> > >> "kamel run Routes.java"
>> > >>
>> > >> Where "kamel" is a binary we release within the project. Kubernetes
>> > custom
>> > >> resources will be used under the hood, but the "kamel" binary is a
>> > utility
>> > >> that will provide a user experience comparable to that of current
>> > >> serverless platforms (or even better).
>> > >>
>> > >> But there's not just that.
>> > >>
>> > >> Luca wrote this weekend a prototype for having a polyglot Camel (
>> > >> https://github.com/lburgazzoli/camel-routes-loader).
>> > >>
>> > >> With that, you will be able to e.g. write integrations in groovy and
>> use
>> > >> the same Kamel engine:
>> > >> "kamel run routes.groovy"
>> > >>
>> > >> But also JavaScript:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> https://github.com/lburgazzoli/camel-routes-loader/blob/ca986541f7c422ee02c21727cdfe4293d64a364e/src/test/resources/ext/camel/routes.js#L2
>> > >>
>> > >> This is a prototype right now, but a similar approach based on GraalVM
>> > has
>> > >> a lot of potential, because users can not only use their preferred
>> > >> language
>> > >> to write routes and processors, but also bind them to functionalities
>> > >> available in their preferred libraries.
>> > >>
>> > >> How much this will be feasible depends on the adoption of GraalVM, but
>> > I'm
>> > >> seeing many frameworks adding metadata to make GraalVM work with
>> > >> reflection. We've also done some work in Camel, there are some Jiras
>> for
>> > >> it
>> > >> and first tests made by Guillaume signal that it's something feasible,
>> > at
>> > >> least for the Camel core and a subset of components. GraalVM would be
>> > >> important also to reduce memory footprint and improve startup time, as
>> > >> already said.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > I'll continue experimenting and I'll report back.
>> > > I did some initial experiments leveraging some modifications I did  to
>> > > speed up the start up time [1] and on a single route [2].
>> > > There may be some limitations down the road of course, but at least it
>> > > shows that it's feasible. Fwiw, the experiments lead to a startup time
>> of
>> > > 14 ms compared to a few hundreds milliseconds (roughly 680 with [1]).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> If the GraalVM approach works (it is working for other frameworks),
>> > >> instead
>> > >> of rewriting a subset of Camel in Go (as the original proposal
>> > mentions),
>> > >> we can just sanitize and recompile our existing codebase: this way we
>> > >> fully
>> > >> leverage the strength of Apache Camel.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Right, if we can avoid rewriting Camel, that would be much better !
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-12688
>> > > [2]
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/gnodet/openwhisk-runtime-camel/blob/master/camel-openwhisk-example/src/main/java/org/jboss/fuse/openwhisk/camel/example/SimpleCamelFunction.java
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> Another important thing in the roadmap is actually how we'll integrate
>> > >> with
>> > >> current FaaS platforms. We will evaluate together if it's better to
>> > have a
>> > >> tighter integration with some of them or to leverage knative for some
>> > >> aspects of Kamel...
>> > >>
>> > >> But, let's get started!
>> > >>
>> > >> Il 19 lug 2018 10:45, "Nicola Ferraro" <ni.ferraro@xxxxxxxxx> ha
>> > scritto:
>> > >>
>> > >> It's clear to me that we need to add support for our existing XML DSL,
>> > >> that
>> > >> is powerful. But there are multiple reasons why I'd like to also
>> "add" a
>> > >> limited yaml/json notation to "Kamel".
>> > >>
>> > >> The first one (and simplest) is that json/yaml is the primary encoding
>> > for
>> > >> all resources exchanged with the Kubernetes API server. I'm not saying
>> > >> that
>> > >> for this reason the Integration resource cannot contain a XML
>> > >> (/Java/Ballerina) section, but from a pure presentational point of
>> view,
>> > >> having the possibility to write simple use cases (even a "hello
>> world")
>> > in
>> > >> pure json/yaml is better than always requiring a mix of json and XML.
>> > >>
>> > >> The second one is simplicity. Writing a optimizer (the module that
>> > >> materializes the integration into running code, choosing a specific
>> > >> runtime
>> > >> and configuration) for a turing-complete language like Java is not
>> easy:
>> > >> even if you manage to create a good parser, it may be able to do
>> > >> optimizations only if you write routes in a particular way, without
>> > >> complex
>> > >> constructs.
>> > >> XML is ok from this point of view. The thing is that both json/yaml
>> and
>> > >> XML
>> > >> are just two different ways to serialize object trees, that can be
>> then
>> > >> statically analyzed.
>> > >> The point is not XML vs json/yaml, it's more about tailoring a new
>> > >> minimalistic DSL to the emerging use cases vs proposing "only" our
>> > classic
>> > >> way of writing integrations. I think XML can be the "advanced" way. We
>> > can
>> > >> experiment optimizations easily with the new DSL, and enable them also
>> > on
>> > >> XML if it's worth.
>> > >>
>> > >> Scripting should be part of the spec, but I'd try to use programming
>> > >> languages only for processing/transformation, not for the route
>> > >> definition.
>> > >>
>> > >> Third one is performance. Apart from the fact that json parsers are in
>> > >> general said to be faster than XML parsers... Given the "fast startup"
>> > >> target that we want to reach, we may think e.g. to translate the new
>> DSL
>> > >> into Java or Go code, then compiling it. This allows doing parsing at
>> > >> build
>> > >> time in order to avoid it on startup. This kind of improvements are
>> much
>> > >> easier with a limited DSL but much more difficult with a existing
>> > >> fully-fledged DSL..
>> > >>
>> > >> Nicola
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:51 PM Pontus Ullgren <ullgren@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > I also like the idea but with some comments.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > As Hiram Chirino I'm not sure YAML/JSON is the best language for
>> this.
>> > >> > Perhaps a more fluent DSL like the Camel Java DSL or perhaps
>> something
>> > >> like
>> > >> > Ballerina language would be better suited ?
>> > >> > Also in my experience even simple integrations, that is simple real
>> > >> world
>> > >> > integration and not just hello world demos, requires
>> > >> > you to add one or more Java class or scripting in addition to the
>> core
>> > >> > components. So for it to be useful there must be some way to add
>> > custom
>> > >> > code in some way for aggregation/enrichment strategies.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > If you go with a GO implementation I would also like some fallback
>> for
>> > >> > using Java since I find it unlikely that the existing base of
>> > components
>> > >> > will be ported any time soon.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > As for the name as other I like the "Kamel"  name however a being a
>> > >> newborn
>> > >> > kotlin fan I know of one pre-existing project with that name
>> > >> > that is close enough to allow for potential confusion.
>> > >> > https://github.com/topicusoverheid/kamel
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Looking forward to see the result.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > // Pontus
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 15:15 Hiram Chirino <hiram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > Love the idea.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Personally, I'd keep using the existing Camel XML DSL if possible.
>> > >> You
>> > >> > can
>> > >> > > still embed it in the CRD.  The operator that deploys it could
>> > >> inspect it
>> > >> > > and figure whats the most optimized runtime that can support the
>> > DSL.
>> > >> > > Perhaps if it's only using the restricted set of camel components
>> > >> > supported
>> > >> > > by camel-go (https://github.com/lburgazzoli/camel-go) then is
>> uses
>> > >> that.
>> > >> > > Otherwise it falls back to using camel spring boot.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > For that to work I think we need the different runtime
>> > >> implementations to
>> > >> > > provide a way to ask them: 'hey do you support running this camel
>> > >> route?'
>> > >> > > Not a trivial thing to respond to, it might require a build step
>> in
>> > >> there
>> > >> > > for traditional Camel runtimes.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 4:32 AM Antonin Stefanutti <
>> > >> > antonin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> > > wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > Hi Nicola,
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > I love the idea.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > I just wonder whether YAML/JSON is an expressive enough format
>> in
>> > >> the
>> > >> > > long
>> > >> > > > term. But as you’ve mentioned, starting simple would enable
>> > >> > experimenting
>> > >> > > > some very interesting / promising optimisations. So it seems
>> worth
>> > >> > taking
>> > >> > > > that path, instead of trying to embed a complex DSL or the
>> > existing
>> > >> XML
>> > >> > > DSL
>> > >> > > > into the CRD.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > Definitely +1
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > On 13 Jul 2018, at 01:30, Nicola Ferraro <
>> ni.ferraro@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > Hi Cameleers,
>> > >> > > > > it's now passed some time since I started thinking about a new
>> > >> > project
>> > >> > > > that
>> > >> > > > > we can begin here at Apache Camel, and I'd like to have your
>> > >> opinion.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > We've already been targeting cloud-native applications with
>> > Camel,
>> > >> > > > > especially on top of Kubernetes, that is becoming "the
>> standard"
>> > >> > cloud
>> > >> > > > > platform. But writing a Camel integration and running it on
>> > >> > Kubernetes
>> > >> > > > > requires some effort: choosing the base platform (spring-boot,
>> > >> karaf,
>> > >> > > > > simple main?), adding health checks (actuator?), packaging a
>> > >> docker
>> > >> > > image
>> > >> > > > > and creating the Kubernetes resources (fabric8-maven-plugin,
>> > >> helm?),
>> > >> > > > > publishing the image on a docker registry, then finally
>> > deploying
>> > >> the
>> > >> > > > > resources on a Kubernetes cluster.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > The resulting integration container is then far from being
>> > optimal
>> > >> > > from a
>> > >> > > > > resource consumption point of view: it is likely that a Camel
>> > >> > > Spring-Boot
>> > >> > > > > application will require at least 200MB of RAM and also some
>> CPU
>> > >> > shares
>> > >> > > > > because of polling threads used by many components.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > In case people use a CI/CD pipeline, it will take also a long
>> > >> time to
>> > >> > > get
>> > >> > > > > from a code update to having a Kubernetes POD up and running.
>> > >> > > > > Apart from compilation and image push/pull time, also startup
>> > >> time is
>> > >> > > > often
>> > >> > > > > ~10 seconds for Camel + Spring-Boot in a container with
>> standard
>> > >> > limits
>> > >> > > > on
>> > >> > > > > resources, making it difficult to propose this combination for
>> > >> > > > "serverless
>> > >> > > > > integration" (this term is becoming increasingly more
>> popular).
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > So, my proposal is to start to investigate a "more
>> cloud-native"
>> > >> > > approach
>> > >> > > > > to integration: *making Camel integrations first-class
>> citizens
>> > in
>> > >> > > > > Kubernetes, and making them super fast and lightweight.*
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > We can base the project on Kubernetes Custom Resource
>> > Definitions
>> > >> > (CRD)
>> > >> > > > > <
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/extend-kubernetes/api-extension/custom-resources/
>> > >> > > > >,
>> > >> > > > > for example a Integration CRD and have a Kubernetes "operator"
>> > >> > > > > <https://coreos.com/operators/> taking care of:
>> > >> > > > > - Optimizing the integration that we want to run
>> > >> > > > > - Packaging in a container
>> > >> > > > > - Running it on Kubernetes
>> > >> > > > > - Managing its entire lifecycle
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > A Kubernetes-native integration may look like:
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > -------------------
>> > >> > > > > kind: "Integration"
>> > >> > > > > apiVersion: "camel.apache.org/v1alpha1"
>> > >> > > > > metadata:
>> > >> > > > > name: "example"
>> > >> > > > > spec:
>> > >> > > > > replicas: 1
>> > >> > > > > routes:
>> > >> > > > >  - id: timer
>> > >> > > > >    route:
>> > >> > > > >     - type: endpoint
>> > >> > > > >       uri: timer:tick
>> > >> > > > >     - type: endpoint
>> > >> > > > >       uri: log:info
>> > >> > > > > -------------------
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > For those who are not familiar with Kubernetes resources, this
>> > >> kind
>> > >> > of
>> > >> > > > > YAML/JSON resource definitions are really common.
>> > >> > > > > The example route is embedded in the Kubernetes resource
>> > >> declaration
>> > >> > > and
>> > >> > > > > follows a basic "flow DSL". We may start from a basic one and
>> > >> evolve
>> > >> > it
>> > >> > > > as
>> > >> > > > > new requirements arrive from the community.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > I've made a very simple (but working) POC here:
>> > >> > > > > https://github.com/nicolaferraro/integration-operator.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > This idea of a "Cloud-Native Camel" on Kubernetes (project
>> > >> codename
>> > >> > can
>> > >> > > > be "
>> > >> > > > > *Kamel*", if you like it :D), will be an enabler for a lot of
>> > nice
>> > >> > > > features.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > For example, we can propose "Kamel" as "ideal" platform for
>> > >> > "serverless
>> > >> > > > > integration" (I see many people reinventing the wheel out
>> > there):
>> > >> the
>> > >> > > > > operator can reduce resource consumption of a single
>> integration
>> > >> by
>> > >> > > > > optimizing the runtime and also pause/resume integrations when
>> > >> they
>> > >> > are
>> > >> > > > not
>> > >> > > > > used, that is the basic idea behind "serverless" (e.g. think
>> to
>> > >> > > > > HTTP-triggered integrations, but not only).
>> > >> > > > > Focusing on serverless will bring more emphasis on push-based
>> > >> > > > notifications
>> > >> > > > > (webhooks, cloud events <https://cloudevents.io/>), that are
>> > >> rarely
>> > >> > > > used in
>> > >> > > > > Camel components, that prefer a poll based approach being it
>> > >> simpler
>> > >> > to
>> > >> > > > use
>> > >> > > > > in classic deployments, but not so good in the cloud, where
>> more
>> > >> > > > resources
>> > >> > > > > become higher direct costs for the users.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > The presence of the simplified DSL enables also experimenting
>> on
>> > >> > > > "*reduced*
>> > >> > > > > subsets of Camel" implemented in languages other than Java,
>> for
>> > >> > example
>> > >> > > > one
>> > >> > > > > language that has a reactive approach on thread scheduling
>> and a
>> > >> > really
>> > >> > > > low
>> > >> > > > > memory footprint, like Go.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > But apart from this kind of experiments (that are valid IMO),
>> > the
>> > >> > > "Kamel"
>> > >> > > > > optimizer will have free room to choose the right platform for
>> > the
>> > >> > > > > integration that the user wants to run, including, in the
>> > future,
>> > >> > doing
>> > >> > > > AOT
>> > >> > > > > compilation using Graal/VM (less memory, faster startup) if
>> the
>> > >> > > features
>> > >> > > > > (components) used in the integration are supporting it (maybe
>> we
>> > >> can
>> > >> > > add
>> > >> > > > > AOT compilation in the roadmap for Camel 3).
>> > >> > > > > A silly optimization: integrations starting from "timer:..."
>> may
>> > >> be
>> > >> > > > > scheduled directly with Kubernetes CronJobs, so they will
>> > consume
>> > >> > > > resources
>> > >> > > > > only when actually running.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > Being the final integrations lightweight and being the DSL
>> > >> > > > > language-independent, we may see a increased adoption of Camel
>> > >> also
>> > >> > as
>> > >> > > > > agile integration layer for not-only-java applications (both
>> > >> "cloud"
>> > >> > > and
>> > >> > > > > "serverless" applications).
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > I'm the first one that would like to work on a project ilke
>> > this.
>> > >> > I've
>> > >> > > > > worked on many Kubernetes/Openshift based applications and
>> > >> frameworks
>> > >> > > in
>> > >> > > > > the past years, also on operators and CRDs, and I think this
>> way
>> > >> of
>> > >> > > > > redesigning integrations has a lot of potential.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > Integrations will not be necessarily limited to the simplified
>> > >> DSL,
>> > >> > but
>> > >> > > > we
>> > >> > > > > can add extension points for scripting and even custom
>> libraries
>> > >> > > > (although
>> > >> > > > > limiting the freedom of the optimizer).
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > The most important thing: it may become a great project, since
>> > >> it's
>> > >> > > > driven
>> > >> > > > > by a great community.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > So, what do you think? Is it crazy enough?
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > Nicola
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > --
>> > >> > > Hiram Chirino
>> > >> > > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> > >> > > hchirino@xxxxxxxxxx | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> > >> > > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > ------------------------
>> > > Guillaume Nodet
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ------------------------
>> > Guillaume Nodet
>> >
>> --
>> --
>> Luca Burgazzoli
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet