Yeah, I agree. Its more intuitive without the proceed()... I wonder if
there was a good reason for it being implemented in this way?
Hiram Chirino wrote:
wouldn't most folks want to proceed() when intercepting? Should we
not make that the default behavior without having to specify
proceed()?
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Claus Ibsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jonathan
Thanks a lot for the patch. I thought about the proceed method as well but since it
didn't work I assumed I was wrong as well. I couldn't imagine the "standard logging
/ kinda like AOP logging" feature was malfunction in Camel.
I will get the patch in the SVN asap, and fix the wiki.
Med venlig hilsen
Claus Ibsen
......................................
Silverbullet
Skovsgårdsvænget 21
8362 Hørning
Tlf. +45 2962 7576
Web: www.silverbullet.dk
-----Original Message-----
From: janstey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14. april 2008 02:44
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
Hey Claus,
AFAIK you need to add a proceed() at the end of an intercept() route or, as
you described, it swallows the exchange. I found a little bug in the
proceed() method as well... but this patch should fix it up.
http://www.nabble.com/file/p16669908/intercept.patch intercept.patch
Cheers,
Jon
Claus Ibsen wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> Sorry for the title but I needed to get your attention.
>
>
>
> On the wiki: http://activemq.apache.org/camel/dsl.html
>
> The interceptor sample is a good old logging sample that looks plausible
> and easy to understand. If you add intercept("log:mylogger") then Camel
> would log all the transitions.
>
>
>
> But the terrible part is that the logging example does not work as stated.
> In Camel if the interceptor kicks in it "swallows" the exchange and the
> exchange is not routed further.
>
>
>
> I have added a unit test to the came-core:
> org.apache.camel.issues.InterceptorLogTest that demonstrates the problem.
>
>
>
> If you enable the intercept() codeline the unit test fails.
>
>
>
> What is the fundamental usage for interceptors in Camel?
>
> The use case from an end user was to log all the steps so he could get an
> idea how the exchanges was actually routed - a great feature in my mind.
>
>
>
>
>
> I have created a ticket CAMEL-442 to improve the documentation for
> interceptors. I think the interceptor concept should be on its own page,
> so its easier to find in the current documentation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Med venlig hilsen
>
>
>
> Claus Ibsen
>
> ......................................
>
> Silverbullet
>
> Skovsgårdsvænget 21
>
> 8362 Hørning
>
> Tlf. +45 2962 7576
>
> Web: www.silverbullet.dk
>
>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/interceptors---something-is-terrible-wrong-tp16661322s22882p16669908.html
Sent from the Camel - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
