Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-camel-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-camel-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0A32F96ED for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:59:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 69191 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2012 12:59:22 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-camel-dev-archive@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 69078 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2012 12:59:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@camel.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 69069 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jun 2012 12:59:22 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:59:22 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [64.85.173.253] (HELO server.dankulp.com) (64.85.173.253) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:59:16 +0000 Received: by server.dankulp.com (Postfix, from userid 5000) id 7DB31182B70; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:58:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on server.dankulp.com X-Spam-Level: X-Msg-File: /tmp/mailfilter-dev@camel.apache.org.JJKQOZs50U Received: from dilbert.dankulp.com (c-24-91-72-253.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.91.72.253]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by server.dankulp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D175418015F for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:58:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Kulp To: dev@camel.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Camel MUST use valid URIs for identifying and configuring Endpoints Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:58:53 -0400 Message-ID: <1502130.lEBftuyySC@dilbert.dankulp.com> User-Agent: KMail/4.8.3 (Linux/3.2.2; KDE/4.8.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <4FE11B4D.6030405@gmail.com> References: <4FE11B4D.6030405@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.9 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, SHORTCIRCUIT shortcircuit=ham autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 I'm +1 to the idea. If we call it a URI, then it needs to be a URI. If this vote does not pass, then we would need to find a new name (configuration string?) and update the documentation and such to reflect that this is NOT a URI. In particular, I'm +1 for full validation for 3.0. For 2.x (including porting back to 2.10 and maybe 2.9.x), we should allow the current URI's but make sure a nice big fat warnging is displayed somehow so the user will know that what they have entered is not a URI. Dan On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 08:37:33 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. -- Daniel Kulp dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com