camel-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Autowiring RouteBuilders defined as beans in Spring.
Date Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:16:22 GMT
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:21 PM, sgargan <sgargan@qualcomm.com> wrote:

>
> I've put together some documentation for the feature, its not much. Claus
> mentioned some kind of  karma(?) to allow me to edit the confluence pages.
> If you'd prefer I can just mail it to one of you, though I don't mind
> adding
> it. Just state a preference.


Hi

To get karma you need to create an account on the wiki pages. Just click
edit in the bottom of any of the camel
html wiki pages. Then state your username in a mail on this forum and I will
be able to grant your edit rights (= karma).



>
>
> Cheers
>
> ste
>
> willem.jiang wrote:
> >
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > Claus created a same requirement[1] as yours, but I like your scanner
> > with exclude and include option more :)
> >
> > Thanks for your contribution.
> >
> > [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1695
> >
> > Willem
> >
> > sgargan wrote:
> >> Claus,
> >>
> >> I've made a patch to allow the Ant like inclusion and exclusion you
> >> suggested. I've opened an improvement Jira ticket for it with a patch
> >> https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1708.
> >>
> >> Please shout if there is anything you'd like changed with it.
> >>
> >> thx
> >>
> >> ste
> >>
> >>
> >> sgargan wrote:
> >>> Cheers Claus. The ant exclusions sound like a good idea. Let me take a
> >>> look at what that would involve.
> >>>
> >>> thx for your help,
> >>>
> >>> ste
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, sgargan<sgargan@qualcomm.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>> In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as beans
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon
> >>>>> intialization
> >>>>> e.g.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <bean id="simpleHttpRoute" class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute"
> />
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This bean would have been added to the context when the following
> >>>>> block
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> code in in the  installRoutes method of the CamelContextFactoryBean
> >>>>> was
> >>>>> executed
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  protected void installRoutes() throws Exception {
> >>>>>        if (autowireRouteBuilders != null &&
> >>>>> autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) {
> >>>>>            Map builders =
> >>>>> getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class, true,
> >>>>> true);
> >>>>>            if (builders != null) {
> >>>>>                for (Object builder : builders.values()) {
> >>>>>                    getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder) builder);
> >>>>>                }
> >>>>>            }
> >>>>>        }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of a
fix
> >>>>> for
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context
> defined
> >>>>> routes
> >>>>> do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for dropping
> >>>>> this?
> >>>>> Was
> >>>>> it considered harmful?
> >>>> You can use the <routeBuilder ref="simpleHttpRoute"/> in
> >>>> <camelContext>.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes it was considered to magical. What if you have 2 camel contextes
> >>>> then they would both
> >>>> load up all the route builders they could find as spring beans.
> >>>>
> >>>> And for users coming in to maintain the code would not be able to
> >>>> figure
> >>>> out
> >>>> how the routes are kick started.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yet alone the <package> could be a bit difficult to understand.
> >>>> That reminds me, maybe if it was named package-scan it would be easier
> >>>> to hint that.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders
it
> >>>>> finds
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this
> >>>>> mechanism,
> >>>>> for
> >>>>> instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live in
the
> >>>>> same
> >>>>> package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that
> >>>>> complicate
> >>>>> testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you configure
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties files,
it
> >>>>> is
> >>>>> much
> >>>>> cleaner to define the routes as beans.
> >>>> I have been wondering if we should add ANT files matcher here as well,
> >>>> so you can
> >>>> specify includes/excludes as well.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is
there
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> different mechanism to do setup Routes this way?
> >>>> Yes the <routeBuilder ref> tag.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thanks in advance
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stephen.
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> View this message in context:
> >>>>>
> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html
> >>>>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Claus Ibsen
> >>>> Apache Camel Committer
> >>>>
> >>>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> >>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> >>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p24062126.html
> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>


-- 
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer

Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus

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