camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From huntc <>
Subject Re: Camel 2.0 Async Findings - Roadmap to a solution
Date Mon, 25 May 2009 07:00:17 GMT

Hi Claus,

As per your blog request, I'd like to discuss the virtues of naming the
async method "async" vs treating your 2.0 functionality as a new
implementation of the existing "thread" method.

When I think about concurrency I think about multiple threads of execution -
not whether something is asynchronous. You can have something being
asynchronous without it being multi-threaded e.g. Javascript's

Thread also implies just one thread. Perhaps renaming async to "threads" and
deprecating "thread" may be the way to go? Specifying "threads" without a
thread pool size should perhaps default to the number of processors + 1 as a
rule... (as per MINA?).


Kind regards,
View this message in context:
Sent from the Camel Development mailing list archive at

View raw message