camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Davies <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Camel MUST use valid URIs for identifying and configuring Endpoints
Date Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:06:14 GMT

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<>  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
>>> [1]**rfc2396.txt<>
>>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.**org/mod_mbox/camel-dev/201206.**
>>> mbox/%3C4FD60168.5090009%**<>

View raw message