camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Łukasz Dywicki <l...@code-house.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Camel MUST use valid URIs for identifying and configuring Endpoints
Date Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:46:31 GMT
+1 (non binding)

If we'll support all existing features I see no locks here.

Best regards,
Lukasz Dywicki
--
Code-House
http://code-house.org


Wiadomość napisana przez Christian Müller w dniu 20 cze 2012, o godz. 21:57:

> +1
> see my comments on [2].
> 
> Also because the Camel code base grows and grows because we got some good
> contributions and implemented new features, making the core code base as
> much easy as possible is an important thing IMO. Throwing away all the
> hacks is a good possibility.
> Also doing the same thing equal should be important for us and our users.
> e.g. constantly using protocol://user@host:port instead of
> protocol://host:port?username=xxx or so...
> But this is another discussion... ;-)
> 
> Christian
> 
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> -1
>> 
>> I don't think camel endpoints are real Uris as they are not really
>> used to point to a resource, though they can fall back to a URI in
>> simple cases.  The fact that we use URI-like syntax is I think because
>> it's easy to use and quite easily understandable.  We could have use
>> json or whatever syntax here.  We could even support multiple syntax
>> (actually, json for configuring endpoints could make a lot of sense
>> too as in some cases, it would be even more readable).
>> 
>> I don't really see any problem with the way things work now, and
>> changing what works just for the sake of complying with a spec we
>> don't care about, is not really worth it imho.
>> 
>> This would also lead to less coherence, as for example, the property
>> placeholder syntax ${xxx} inspired from spring is used in various
>> place, not only uris, but also expressions and such.   That would
>> raise confusion.
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:37 AM, 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
>>> [2]
>>> 
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/camel-dev/201206.mbox/%3C4FD60168.5090009%40gmail.com%3E
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> ------------------------
>> Guillaume Nodet
>> ------------------------
>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>> ------------------------
>> FuseSource, Integration everywhere
>> http://fusesource.com
>> 


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message