camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Gale <paul.n.g...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Hierarchical registry for CamelContext
Date Fri, 03 Feb 2017 15:27:45 GMT
Luca,

Can you outline either some particular business problem that you're trying
to solve or some current impediment to a solution that would be remedied by
your proposed design change?

Perhaps a few use case scenarios might help demonstrate the need. Just a
thought.

Thanks,
Paul

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Luca Burgazzoli <lburgazzoli@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yes an easy way to register beans that are not really meaningful
> outside the camel context and maybe beans we do not want to make
> available through dependency injection so they can't be easily
> modified outside.
> The hierarchical nature is only to make it transparent for consumer
> i.e. a service call / hystrix implementation would search in the
> registry and do not care were the bean come from.
>
> Indeed I'm not sure it is the best option, still need to experiment about
> it.
>
> ---
> Luca Burgazzoli
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ibsen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > So are you referring to some configuration for service call / hystrix
> etc?
> >
> > The problem with the registry being hierarchical is that its backed by
> > different implementations and then the user experience is different
> > depending on which beans you get. For example CDI/spring has all kind
> > of dependency injection magic, where as a basic map registry cannot do
> > anything.
> >
> > So it sounds more like you are looking for an internal generic registry?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Luca Burgazzoli <lburgazzoli@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >> I'm wondering if it would make sense to have a sort of hierarchical
> >> registry where the root registry is always created by the CamelContext
> >> then the specific container registry adds its own registry on top and
> >> the lookup would be top down.
> >>
> >> The motivation is that there are some beans that are only used by
> >> camel and the registry is always involved so it does not make much
> >> sense to have them available also on the container, i.e. the
> >> ServiceCall and Hystrix configured through XML.
> >>
> >> This would reduce the complexity to add new definitions to the XML as
> >> one do not need to create a container specific parser (blueprint,
> >> spring, cdi) for object that are strictly camel-context related.
> >>
> >> What do you think ?
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Luca Burgazzoli
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Claus Ibsen
> > -----------------
> > http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
> > Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
>

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