On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:58 PM, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/12/11 Ramon Buckland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Refresh my memory - what is it about wireTap that doesn't suit? (If >>> you maybe swizzle your understanding of wire tap to be - send a copy >>> of the same message to N destinations rather than just 2 :) >>> >>> >> To me wireTap feels / sounds like a way to "tap into" a message, where the >> *other* receivers are not the primary, ie, that there is one primary and >> 'tapped to' endpoints are secondary. >> >> Think of MI5, FBI or AFP (aussie fed police) tapping your phone, they are >> not the intended recipient of the message, but they get one (lots). >> >> In a loan broker example, where we call out to multiple loan providers, they >> are all the intended recipient, so the wireTap seems though it is not suited >> for this position, based on it's name. >> >> "I don't want to "wire tap" a message to them, I want to send to all." >> >> My current use of the <multicast> and in documentation I explain to others >> kind of fits into a Blind (don't look at message) Recipient List. >> >> .. hope that makes sense. (and the icon fits) >> http://www.eaipatterns.com/RecipientList.html > > > Yeah. Maybe we just add wireTap in and under the covers the > implementation is kinda similar but we preserve multicast as a name? +1 on keeping multicast (or if we really can find a better name) +1 on adding wiretap to the DSL that uses multicast under the covers
> > > > -- > James > ------- > http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ > > Open Source Integration > http://fusesource.com/ > -- /Claus Ibsen Apache Camel Committer Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
