Hi James Maybe you dot get to much sleep at nights now ;) But I had to do a 2nd pass to read and understand your mail.
Are you suggesting that we can merge the uri and ref @annotation attribute and this imply a single attribute that supports both? If so what should be the name of this attribute? I currently like that the uri / ref style as you are in no doubt what they do. But is there a tremendous difference in the code base to support both? I was wondering if we should do a stratety as - look in registry first, if match use it - if no match create an endpoint with the provided text eg: @EndpointInject(uri="foo") @EndpointInject(uri="jms:queue:bar") So if there is a foo in the registry it is used. As there is no bean in the regsitry with jms:queue:bar an endpoint will be created Yeah you can do: uri="ref:foo" but I doubt that many end users know this. But I haven't played so much with the annotations as you have, so I am sure you are on to something. /Claus Ibsen Apache Camel Committer Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:50 PM, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Many places in Camel take a uri or a ref. e.g. > > @EndpointInject(uri="foo") or @EndpointInject(ref="bar") > > I wonder if given we've a ref component so we can use a uri of > "ref:bar" for a reference; should we do away with the difference > between them in the annotations/DSL/APIs for 2.0? > > -- > James > ------- > http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ > > Open Source Integration > http://fusesource.com/ >
