Mule IDE 2.0 Released

Discussions

News: Mule IDE 2.0 Released

  1. Mule IDE 2.0 Released (7 messages)

    MuleSoft announces that Mule IDE 2.0 for Mule ESB has been released. Mule IDE 2.0 is a development and testing environment based on Eclipse. It supports the following features: * Creating a new Mule project in Eclipse * Creating a working Mule project in Eclipse based on Mule examples * Creating a new Mule configuration file with selected namespace declarations * Editing Mule configuration files * Integrated Mule schema auto-complete and documentation (using Eclipse-compatible XML editor with context-sensitive content assistant) * Switching between Mule distributions in a project * Running the Mule Server in Eclipse to test your Mule project * Debugging your Mule project in Eclipse Mule IDE 2.0 is compatible with any Mule 2.1 or later community or enterprise Mule distribution. To try it out, go to the Mule IDE installation guide for instructions on installing it. For the future of Mule IDE, we would like to get more feedback from the community. What works for you? What doesn’t? Your comments will help us make the Mule IDE a better tool for you.

    Threaded Messages (7)

  2. does anyone care anymore?[ Go to top ]

    Guys, honestly this is sad. Everything you do is a mirror clone of what SpringSource did. Are you capable of anything creative anymore? The ESB space is now a commodity like app. servers. You had a great innovative product at one time, and Ross was doing amazing things early on. Now? It's all just a clone of what others are doing, and even those are way behind others in the same space. Can you try and come up with something, anything new and innovative, and not be pimped by your marketing and sales staff?
  3. Re: does anyone care anymore?[ Go to top ]

    Guys, honestly this is sad. Everything you do is a mirror clone of what SpringSource did. Are you capable of anything creative anymore?

    The ESB space is now a commodity like app. servers. You had a great innovative product at one time, and Ross was doing amazing things early on. Now? It's all just a clone of what others are doing, and even those are way behind others in the same space.

    Can you try and come up with something, anything new and innovative, and not be pimped by your marketing and sales staff?
    I am not affiliated with Mule, but what is your problem? They have business proposal, if you like it, buy it, if you don't, then do not purchase. You spring fanboys are really amazing. When was the last time SS has innovated please? Is wrapper-around-wrapper-around-wrapper innovation? Give me a single piece of code spring has that would make any mature developer say "gees, this is really creative, i have to read some reasearch papers before I am capable to comprehend what they actually did here". In before, "innovation-with-OSGi-jar-file-with-lifecycle" response. PS Nothing against SS either, if people want to buy what they are selling, im fine with that, just this guy pissed me off.
  4. Mule is wrapper of spring[ Go to top ]

    Mule is built on spring.... I'm working on it for a year, and i just say : leave it, go for spring-integration insteed. It took me 2 month to understand Mule, and 2 hours for Spring-Int... For people who know Spring source code quality : dont look at Mule source code, you'll have an heart attack. Do they know Checkstyle or PMD ? And it's an anti-pattern nest... I'm sorry but go and see by yourself. If you want to understand integration patterns, start with Spring-Integration.
  5. Re: Mule is wrapper of spring[ Go to top ]

    Mule is built on spring.... I'm working on it for a year, and i just say : leave it, go for spring-integration insteed. It took me 2 month to understand Mule, and 2 hours for Spring-Int...

    For people who know Spring source code quality : dont look at Mule source code, you'll have an heart attack. Do they know Checkstyle or PMD ? And it's an anti-pattern nest... I'm sorry but go and see by yourself.

    If you want to understand integration patterns, start with Spring-Integration.
    These two are obvious trolls. Only threads they participated in is this one. If someone wants to understand integration, read book enterprise integration patterns.
  6. Re: Mule is wrapper of spring[ Go to top ]

    Hi I'm not defending anyone. But you're right - read "Enterprise Integration Patterns" (AW, 2004, ISBN 0321200683). Both Mule and Spring-Int declare that they "implement this book". But do really have a look at their source code - Sprint-Int does have Channels (pipes) and filters. In Mule, everything is built around the concept of components (models) wrapped with interceptors, decorated with transformers and separated with routers. Try implementing some dynamic routing or endpoints (another Mule concept). I don't say Mule is bad. I've just used it since 1.2 version and now I have active project depending on each major version (1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.x) and don't feel brave enough to upgrade - I'm sure some people know what I'm talinkg about. I also know Mule's source code - been there too many times to check why some method is not called or why the payload suddenly has changed. In Spring-Int everything's in it's right place. You have messages, channels and filters (transformers, routers, selectors, ...). You want more separation? Use Spring-Int gateways (and for comparison try Mule's nested routers...) When deciding between Spring-Int and Mule, one has to check available providers/transports. Mule has more of them, but it's much easier to implement your own in Spring-Int (I have written several in Mule myself, so I know what I'm talking about). regards Grzegorz Grzybek
  7. Re: Mule is wrapper of spring[ Go to top ]

    Actually, my experience integrating Spring and Mule was somewhat horrific. I'm sure it's better now, but a year or so ago, the integration wasn't nearly as seamless as they made it sound on the website. If you had an existing app context you wanted to drop Mule into, it was nearly impossible to get working. I think things have improved in Mule 2.0, though, although I'm not sure. I think their preference is to run the Mule server as it's own server process, rather than embedded as a drop-in integration server. My preference is to drop the integration server in as necessary, or at least it was in the project I worked on at the time. Also, if you're choosing between Spring Integration and Mule, you might want to take a look at Camel. I agree with the poster who said it took 2 months to get his head around Mule. I had the same experience, whereas with Camel I had things up and running VERY quickly. It also integrated with Spring the way that I wanted it to (isn't that the point of Spring, so that you get things working the way you want them to rather than the way some spec or vendor tells you?), as a drop-in integration server. And from what I've seen, Camel is hands-down the best implementation of the "Enterprise Integration Patterns" book. Their entire design is driven by that book, and the terminology is all the same. You can drill down into each one of the EIP patterns and see exactly how they're implemented in Camel, with names that match up in the configuration and everything. Spring integration isn't bad in this regard but at the time I was evaluating, it just wasn't as mature as Camel. Lastly, I believe that Camel has a support option as well through FUSE, if you need that kind of support. Just like SpringSource and Mule. FWIW I don't have any financial interest in Camel but it was really one of the best projects I have used in the integration space. After working with numerous products like Vitria, WebMethods, and other such tools over the years, it was great to find an open source alternative that was cleanly designed and adaptable to multiple use cases. I didn't find that with Mule and frankly, their licensing structure is absolutely horrible in terms of cost, IMHO.
  8. Re: does anyone care anymore?[ Go to top ]

    Well, Imitation is a valid business strategy! They can offer similar "competitive" product. They will save a lot on RnD and still offer value to their customers. They are also saving a lot on marketing, since customers should be already be familiar with the product nature. And finally this is actually healthy to the market, adding more players, enlarging the market size, offering choice etc ... Maybe they won't make the headlines, and probably shouldn't. But if they are knowingly following an imitation strategy, it actually good business