I guess for those (and only those) components for which Camel wishes to
maintain multiple versions (e.g., http3 & http4, mina1 & mina2), it
might be best for such components to always have a version number as
part of their names instead of renaming whatever the standard version
becomes back to the unnumeric version; i.e., a new component http5
always remains named http5, whether its market share is a just starting
out 5% or the mainstream 80%, because ultimately such a component is not
so much about sending messages over HTTP as it is about using a specific
version of the Apache HTTP library (and its version-specific options and
settings) to do that task. "http", OTOH, would be a useful name for a
generic component whose underlying implementation is black-boxed and
allowed to change.
For that reason, if we wish to retain camel-http in 3.0 (which most do
not want to do anyway making this point moot), I would probably
recommend a rename to the more specific "http3" while having no
component named "http".
Glen
On 04/09/2012 04:24 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
If we rename http4 to http for camel 3.0 I think it is acceptable as
it is a major version.
On the other hand if we do not do it then what would we do? Keep http4
forever and not have http. For new users this will look just weird.
Christian
Am 09.04.2012 22:04, schrieb Christian Müller:
My 0,02 $:
I would add a warning on page [1] that new user should prefer to use
camel-http4 over camel-http (as we did it already for iBatis).
Camel-http
should mark as deprecated and will be deleted in Camel 3.x.
I would *NOT* rename camel-http to camel-http3 and camel-http4 to
camel-http. This will confuse our users.
[1] http://camel.apache.org/http.html
Best,
Christian
--
Glen Mazza
Talend Community Coders
coders.talend.com
blog: www.jroller.com/gmazza
