camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Camel MUST use valid URIs for identifying and configuring Endpoints
Date Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:19:34 GMT
Thanks Rob, sounds like the best course of action. Will do that.
Hadrian

On 06/21/2012 02:06 PM, Rob Davies wrote:
>
> If you vote had more detail about what you was considering, then artistic feelings wouldn't
have come into it :)
> Why don't you close this vote - and open a new discussion (with more detail?) - so we
can try reach a consensus
>
> On 21 Jun 2012, at 18:19, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>
>> Now finally something I could work with. More inline.
>>
>> Hadrian
>>
>> On 06/21/2012 12:41 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>> -1 This change would NOT be transparent to 2.x users.  Lets not hurt our
>>> 2.x Camel community!
>> I think it will will be transparent. It MUST. The intent is *precisely* to not hurt
the 2.x Camel community. I said it before. Again, this is not about how exactly a solution
will achieve this goal.
>>
>>> This should have been a discussion about how we could
>>> improve Camel 3.x.
>> Isn't there a [discuss] thread that started on 06/11? No comments there until I started
the [vote] thread (on 06/19, eight days later) for reasons I explained already. And it turns
out that my suspicions were correct. I've seen this pattern before.
>>
>> All -1s on this thread are either non technical (of the "I don't want any change"
kind) or assume a solution (lots of "%x%x" hurt my artistic feelings). I am perfectly confident
we can find a solution that both supports the current syntax and is aesthetically pleasing.
>>
>> If anyone wonders if I am frustrated, yes I am. On the plus side, we now have an
open discussion and we can talk about a solution.
>>
>>
>>>  From my point of view, Camel is all about being flexible and an integrating
>>> as many technologies as possible and avoid exclusive of approaches.  I
>>> think that needs to continue even in how you configure endpoints.  You
>>> might be able to convince me that most camel components SHOULD validate
>>> their endpoint config uri using the Java URI class.  Or that components
>>> should have a more formal way of expressing what endpoint config syntax it
>>> expects.
>> Agree. Perfect. The last part, I am not sure is necessary, but certainly an option.
>>
>>>
>>> java.lang.String is the most flexible and OPEN configuration java class we
>>> have.  Lets keep it that way.
>> Agree. What I meant was String that conform to the URI spec. The api should stay
the way it is. Sorry for not being clear enough.
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea<hzbarcea@gmail.com>  
wrote:
>>>
>>>> Using URIs to identify and configure Endpoints is a notable Apache Camel
>>>> innovation. This feature was present in Camel from its first release. The
>>>> definition of the URIs syntax in unambiguous and defined in RFC-2396 [1].
>>>>
>>>> Some components introduced along the way do not use valid URIs and this
>>>> needs to be corrected. This vote is intended to formalize the apparent lazy
>>>> consensus in the [discuss] thread [2] on the dev@ list. This vote
>>>> reflects agreement with the principle only. If this vote passes the details
>>>> of the solution will be fleshed out later.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 Camel MUST use valid URIs for Endpoint configuration
>>>> [ ] -1 Camel does not need to use valid URIs (please provide reason).
>>>>
>>>> Vote is open for at least 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Hadrian Zbarcea
>>>> Principal Software Architect
>>>> Talend, Inc
>>>> http://coders.talend.com/
>>>> http://camelbot.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/**rfc2396.txt<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt>
>>>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.**org/mod_mbox/camel-dev/201206.**
>>>> mbox/%3C4FD60168.5090009%**40gmail.com%3E<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/camel-dev/201206.mbox/%3C4FD60168.5090009%40gmail.com%3E>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Mime
View raw message