Mailing-List: contact camel-user-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: camel-user@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of hzbarcea@gmail.com designates
 209.85.146.182 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references
         :x-mailer;
        b=ZjmDArB+rZNGLiZB/32TBRSQZlqYQ9mdpXRi1iPxpfR25GWQHwnV6hZ0pzic3gYoPy
         6Z8MTiEjxCZqssmI3fG+TBt4q5CTIF02e7AtnCuOc7WBLOUmy9PfvBuHmHa0AAblMsNs
         OSFITSQaMoXjXfCYatEMA4kozhkvTVg/Gv1Ac=
Message-Id: <80D116FD-DEEF-4761-A044-CC9D66D43881@gmail.com>
From: Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com>
To: camel-user@activemq.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <19104719.post@talk.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926)
Subject: Re: echo() processor
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:15:51 -0400
References: <19086322.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <98F7EDF8-1971-4617-BB4F-B9C54284FCFA@gmail.com>
 <19089792.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <469156CB-8548-49D8-B77A-C8448A5A444E@gmail.com>
 <4C1FB9C00D24A140906239533638C4D2051C64EC@EXVS04.exserver.dk>
 <19104719.post@talk.nabble.com>

@Claus,

True.  I guess using a bean in that case should be acceptable.  It's =20
not 1-to-1 translation of the dsl, but should it be?

Hadrian


On Aug 22, 2008, at 6:19 AM, Fintan Bolton wrote:

>
> Hi Claus,
>
> If using a static method inside process(...), it might be clearer to =20=

> give it
> a more explicit name. For example:
>
> from(...).process(copyInToOut());
>
> -
> Fintan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Hi
>
> The static solution is neat however it is not avail for the Spring XML
> routing.
>
> But I like the idea, but is the echo name a common pattern / term =20
> for such a
> copy-in-to-out? I think Mule has a similar component also. So it =20
> might not
> be to bad to introduce.
>
> Maybe it will be obsolete if the camel components is smarter / more =20=

> strict
> about the MEP patterns the support/use.
>
>
>
> Med venlig hilsen
>
> Claus Ibsen
> ......................................
> Silverbullet
> Skovsg=E5rdsv=E6nget 21
> 8362 H=F8rning
> Tlf. +45 2962 7576
> Web: www.silverbullet.dk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hadrian Zbarcea [mailto:hzbarcea@gmail.com]
> Sent: 21. august 2008 18:32
> To: camel-user@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: echo() processor
>
> The DSL is big as it is.  We add to it integration patterns, but my
> personal preference would be to not add things like echo().  I would
> more in favor of having it a (static) method that returns a processor,
> so one would use it like:
>
> from(...).process(echo());
>
> My $0.02,
> Hadrian
>
> --=20
> View this message in context: =
http://www.nabble.com/echo%28%29-processor-tp19086322s22882p19104719.html
> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>