Hi, The overall goal of bundles is to provide a collective functional capability. So really, the example of message-broker-rabbitmq is not ideal in this case; it was mostly included that way as a part of the openstack deployment in ClearLinux and really should have just been called ‘message-broker’ or even ‘openstack-message-broker’. For this one, since mosquitto is relatively unique to iot, I would prefer to see it included in the ‘iot’ bundle directly, as part of that functional technology. Your point about wanting to run a server standalone is well-taken, however, so may I suggest ‘iot-message-broker’ as a new bundle, that includes mosquitto/mqtt, and that is then included as you have suggested in ‘iot’. Having a generic bundle of message brokers would not be particularly useful, since very very few people would ever want to have both running in the same place. Summary: 1) New bundle: ‘iot-message-broker’, contents ‘mosquitto’. 2) Add ‘include(iot-message-broker)’ to ‘iot’ bundle. [ Victor, if there’s no issue with this layout, feel free to do it up and merge it… ] Cheers, Jim Chamings *From: *Dev <dev-bounces(a)lists.clearlinux.org> on behalf of Abraham Arce <xe1gyq(a)gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, May 16, 2016 at 8:35 AM *To: *Victor Rodriguez <vm.rod25(a)gmail.com> *Cc: *"dev(a)lists.clearlinux.org" <dev(a)lists.clearlinux.org> *Subject: *Re: [Dev] Bundle Mqtt Broker Arjan, Victor, Thanks for your quick response and comments... First, the reason for my request is we are going to use Clear Linux as a Learning Platform for Cloud as part of "The IoT Learning Initiative" https://theiotlearninginitiative.gitbooks.io/master/content/ https://twitter.com/IoTLearningInit Second, by looking at the List of Bundles <https://clearlinux.org/documentation/bundles_in_clr.html> we have a couple which looks related: *Bundle message-broker-rabbitmq <https://github.com/clearlinux/clr-bundles/tree/master/bundles/message-broker-rabbitmq>* https://github.com/clearlinux/clr-bundles/blob/master/bundles/message-broke… *Bundle iot <https://github.com/clearlinux/clr-bundles/blob/master/bundles/iot>* https://github.com/clearlinux/clr-bundles/blob/master/bundles/iot I don't think neither *iot* bundle nor *lamp-basic* are the right place to include Mosquitto Mqtt Broker, I might want only to have Clear Linux server work as a messaging broker alone. If we want to follow a convention to what Victor Morales maintains with rabbitmq, then we could probably call it "message-broker-mosquitto" They are part of "Messaging Protocols" / "Message Brokers" / "Connectivity Protocol" and since IoT is having a big impact on them, some people called them "IoT Protocols". Should we start creating a bundle with some of the previous names to group them? how about "message-brokers" since we are dealing with specific application and not the protocol and once we have this new bundle we can make iot to "include(message-brokers)" bundle? We can start with Mosquitto for now and add other protocols as required in future, in summary the proposal is: message-broker-mosquitto *New Bundle* + mosquitto message-brokers *New Bundle* + include(message-broker-mosquitto) + include(message-broker-rabbitmq) iot * Modified Bundle ... *+ include(message-brokers) Please let me know your comments... Best Regards Abraham On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Victor Rodriguez <vm.rod25(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hi As far as I can see mosquito provides a lightweight method of carrying out messaging using a publish/subscribe model for the IoT devices. So Clear Linux might have an IoT bundle; however, in my opinion, it might not be the best place for it. We might need to put this in a server bundle , like LAMP ( just saying one ) . But sure a bundle from the server point of view with more protocols that the industry uses to communicate IoT devices. Abraham , do you know if there is more of these protocols that might be worth to include . Would be nice to have a bundle that supports the most used IoT communication protocols. Best regards Victor Rodriguez On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Arjan van de Ven <arjan(a)linux.intel.com> wrote: put