Agreed, it would be a bit more consistent and would make it more difficult to mismatch the wiretap / recipient list with the pipeline.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Oisin Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I've always disliked the 'multicast' in the DSL; its kinda ugly. I >> wonder would using the word 'wireTap' be better? > > Looking at it from the Spring pov, this would mean > > <route> > <from uri="seda:a"/> > <wireTap> > <to uri="seda:tap"/> > <to uri="seda:b"/> > </wireTap> > </route> > > which I think is a good change -- give us an id attribute > on the wireTap element and that would be cool ;) > > Here's another suggestion - if you describe a little route > like: > > <route> > <from uri="seda:a"/> > <to uri="seda:tap"/> > <to uri="seda:b"/> > </route> > > then that acts as a pipeline - which is the same as > > <route> > <from uri="seda:a"/> > <pipeline> > <to uri="seda:tap"/> > <to uri="seda:b"/> > </pipeline> > </route> > > d'you think that we could *not* have the two of them, > for the sake of consistency? > > --oh > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://open.iona.com
