jamesnetherton commented on issue #3888: URL: https://github.com/apache/camel-quarkus/issues/3888#issuecomment-1418715953
> 1. Seems like the discussion above suggests a parameter on the component. Yes, that what I was proposing. > 2. Even if we were able to easily determine the blocking possibility, what does this gain? The blocking threadpool is going to be there anyhow. Wouldn't that also be true for Quarkus? Or indeed any application built on Vert.x? In terms of gain, we'd need to run some performance tests to get a read on it. I'm not proposing we make such a change without researching it a bit first. > It provides a convenient foot-gun for people to shoot themselves with when they later change/amend a route and add a blocking step True. But you could argue that scenario is a reality in a plain Quarkus or Vert.x application. > We would need to add an optional (and preferably default to off) option to run the route on the event loop thread That was pretty much my thinking. Preserve the current behavior by default and always run on a worker thread, unless the `platform-http` endpoint is configured to do otherwise. > The other side of this discussion is "are there already idiomatic ways to handle this in Camel today"... Perhaps handing off to a vertx eventbus or a seda endpoint. For `seda` I'm not sure if that is the case. The `platform-http` consumer waits for the route pipeline to complete so it can return a response back to the client. So you'll not release the thread until that work is completed. Certainly if we had more components backed by Vert.x it'd likely help to improve things. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
