Mailing-List: contact camel-dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of hzbarcea@gmail.com designates
 74.125.92.145 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references
         :x-mailer;
        b=U3SnoiiBw/nneR8RI87GRmiL3qpfm22t0LIRBmKc+gB5Wa6vJqtU6E1+UFn8yv3r1K
         sg+gDYqCQXSReBjpVOYyiU3w0c9c3B+Ifn8K5rhbZONSGy9Sjz3tppbVdgErAPJiiHE8
         fiuNJo7S/P2ufO2yllNfUhPiG35NCPy2dwnrs=
Message-Id: <AA4CAD2F-A231-454B-9302-235A9E67F64A@gmail.com>
From: Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com>
To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <ae8372c30811210955v2f84ecacv8466f0473466c32@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] Using verbs for the EIP actions
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:01:47 -0500
References: <49266998.2030703@gmail.com>
 <2748945d0811210538u27edfc9doa8e5ceff4b2594b@mail.gmail.com>
 <af2843cd0811210923l4edbc9c8vca73cad1d66b08a4@mail.gmail.com>
 <FED018F5-0EE3-4346-A42E-18A689216243@gmail.com>
 <ae8372c30811210955v2f84ecacv8466f0473466c32@mail.gmail.com>

The idea is to move it to a different jar, not a different package, to  
maintain backwards compatibility.

Comments and ideas always welcome!

Hadrian

On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:55 PM, raulvk wrote:

> Hi, I was just following this thread and even though I am not a
> committer I thought it would be OK if I put it my 2 cents...
> Don't you think that moving the old noun-based DSL to a different
> package than the current one would defeat the purpose of
> backward-compatibility? If this was done, I believe that all current
> code would still need to be changed to reference the newly package
> that contains the old DSL, therefore disarming the
> backward-compatibility of this solution...
>
> Am I right?
>
> 2008/11/21 Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com>:
>> Interesting idea, but in that case, I'd rather put the old ones in a
>> separate package.  Or put both dsls in separate jars (and use one  
>> or the
>> other).
>>
>>
>> On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure how backward compatible we want to remain.  It could be
>>> possible to put the new java DSL route builders in a new package or
>>> class so that it is possible to one day provide a backward
>>> compatibility support.  Not that we have to do that day 1 of the 2.0
>>> release..
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Jon Anstey <janstey@gmail.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. We shouldn't even be thinking of keeping two sets of DSL  
>>>> methods
>>>> for
>>>> the 2.0 release, would be too messy. I'd say go for it!
>>>>
>>>> BTW we've been keeping track of API breaks in the 2.0.0 release  
>>>> notes
>>>> just
>>>> so users are aware of this
>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAMEL/Camel 
>>>> +2.0.0+Release
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Willem Jiang
>>>> <willem.jiang@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> In the CAMEL-64[1], we are talking about using the verbs for EIP
>>>>> actions.
>>>>> Current Camel's DSL and Spring configruation file are using noun  
>>>>> to
>>>>> define the routing rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> Such as
>>>>> from(seda:a).throttler(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>>
>>>>> <camelContext id="camel"
>>>>> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
>>>>> <route>
>>>>> <from uri="seda:a" />
>>>>> <throttler maximumRequestsPerPeriod="3" timePeriodMillis="30000">
>>>>> <to uri="mock:result" />
>>>>> </throttler>
>>>>> </route>
>>>>> </camelContext>
>>>>>
>>>>> it will be better if we make DSL like this
>>>>> from(seda:a).throttle(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>>
>>>>> As we discussed in the JIRA, it is impossible to make the Spring  
>>>>> schema
>>>>> support old nuns and new verbs at same time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we are working on Camel 2.0, it will be painless if we  
>>>>> directly
>>>>> move on to use the verbs instead of still supporting nuns in DSL  
>>>>> and
>>>>> Spring configuration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts ?
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-64
>>>>>
>>>>> Willem
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Jon
>>>>
>>>> http://janstey.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Hiram
>>>
>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>>
>>> Open Source SOA
>>> http://open.iona.com
>>
>>