+1 sounds good to me. On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Claus Ibsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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/ > -- Cheers, Jon http://janstey.blogspot.com/
