Hi Claus, As per your blog request, I'd like to discuss the virtues of naming the async method "async" vs treating your 2.0 functionality as a new implementation of the existing "thread" method.
When I think about concurrency I think about multiple threads of execution - not whether something is asynchronous. You can have something being asynchronous without it being multi-threaded e.g. Javascript's XmlHttpRequest. Thread also implies just one thread. Perhaps renaming async to "threads" and deprecating "thread" may be the way to go? Specifying "threads" without a thread pool size should perhaps default to the number of processors + 1 as a rule... (as per MINA?). Thoughts? Kind regards, Christopher -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Camel-2.0-Async-Findings---Roadmap-to-a-solution-tp23310165p23702159.html Sent from the Camel Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
