Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E1C200C84 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 18:22:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 329C9160BCE; Mon, 29 May 2017 16:22:13 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 790F7160BC2 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 18:22:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 49829 invoked by uid 500); 29 May 2017 16:22:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 49818 invoked by uid 99); 29 May 2017 16:22:11 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 May 2017 16:22:11 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id BBBCA1A0636 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 16:22:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.313 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.313 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URI_HEX=1.313] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QAM5cfEMo-gi for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 16:22:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mwork.nabble.com (mwork.nabble.com [162.253.133.43]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id B867D5F3F5 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 16:22:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from static.162.255.23.22.macminivault.com (unknown [162.255.23.22]) by mwork.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61E4145A45F5A for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 09:22:06 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 09:22:06 -0700 (MST) From: adie To: users@camel.apache.org Message-ID: <1496074926395-5801311.post@n5.nabble.com> Subject: CamelConfiguration helper class vs restConfiguration() MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit archived-at: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:22:13 -0000 Hello, I am using org.apache.camel.spring.javaconfig.CamelConfiguration to bootstrap my application. Generally it works fine, but if I am using restConfiguration() then it gives me some issues: I've tried with Camel 2.17 and 2.19 with Jetty9 endpoint. If I have two route builders, I can use the restConfiguration() inside to setup rest dsl and then use rest().. fluent builders later. Unfortunately even if restConfiguration() seems to be updating settings on a RouteBuilder only, it also affects all other RouteBuilders that are returned by CamelConfiguration.routes(). As an example, I have a problem with some endpoint properties: A) If I have two route builders with two route configurations the one that is later on the list will override restConfiguration() with its settings. For example, it will clear security handlers. B) If you setup security handler on one route, it will be also respected for the other route. If endpoints are shared between route builders it is quite inconvenient that you can set it up inside one route builder and it propagates to all others that do not reference it, but are by chance loaded together. Best Regards, Marcin -- View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/CamelConfiguration-helper-class-vs-restConfiguration-tp5801311.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.