Hi Christian, I welcome every suggestion to simplify Camel but I'm not sure what benefit this proposal will bring (considering the costs of maintaining backwards compatibility).
More importantly I think you run the risk of introducing a "leaky abstraction"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_abstraction). This proposal hides the servlet and jetty concepts from the end user. Is that what we really what? The user should still be aware he is using servlet/jetty underneath since camel-servlet/camel-jetty need be available on the classpath to get it all working. Also one should understand the implications of servlet (i.e. the need to run Camel in a container) or jetty to some extend when building integration solutions. Regards, Richard On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net > wrote: > Some time ago I did some unification in CXF to make it easier for users to > configure the different http transports. I would like to do a similar > thing for camel. > > Currently we have three different http components: > > camel-http : Only producer > camel-jetty : Only consumer with embedded jetty > camel-servlet : Only consumer with servlet from servlet container or OSGi > Server > > This means people have to use three different prefixes. > > I would like to change this to only use the prefix http. > > Producer: > to("http://myserver/mypath";) > > Servlet consumer: > from("/myservlet/mypath") > > Jetty consumer: > from("http://myserver:myport/**mypath";) > > The idea is to select the Endpoint type based on the URI and endpoint type > but to hide this from the user. > > Christian > > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architect > Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com > >
