camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Schneider <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Camel 3.0 - Core of the routing engine
Date Tue, 19 Feb 2013 07:20:08 GMT

I think one of the main things camel is missing is a routing engine.
Like you wrote, currently each processor calls the next. Aspects like
asynchronous behaviour, transaction and security are also
implemented as processors.

I think what we need is a runtime model of a camel route that represents
the route without aspects. The aspects should then be executed
by the routing engine without blowing up this model.

This change is pretty severe though. I am not sure if we can refactor
the camel core and keep it even somewhat compatible.
I also fear that once we start these changes there is no way back and we
might risk having an instable branch for a long time. So we have
to reduce this risk in some way.


On 19.02.2013 01:21, Raul Kripalani wrote:
> Hello team,
> We use a recursive model in our routing engine to chain processors with one
> another to process exchanges.
> This results in lengthy stacktraces and increased memory usage due to local
> variable retention for longer than strictly needed, IMHO. This recent
> question on Stack Overflow is a typical (short!) stacktrace:
> Debugging
> it can be daunting for users.
> Moreover many infrastructural Processors are woven implicitly along the
> processor chain. Maybe this logic should belong elsewhere (the routing core
> itself?).
> Now that the Camel routing model is consolidated, can we start thinking
> about moving towards an iterative routing approach? I feel the recursive
> approach worked wonders when Camel was still a baby and the architecture
> was heavily evolving: basically any processor, at any point, could do
> anything to the exchange. And everything was a processor. Flexible and
> versatile!
> But now that the concepts are well rooted, I feel we need to formally
> define "the routing process", rather than leaving it all up to processors
> to be assembled in the right order.
> I realize my proposal may sound somewhat abstract at this point, but before
> going to further length, I want to gauge if my concern is shared.
> What do you think?
> Raúl.

Christian Schneider

Open Source Architect

View raw message