We should go through the component to find out if the http4 provides the
full function of http3.1 before we are planing to it.
There are some discussion[1] to show why we keep the camel-http with the
http client 3.1.
As Camel already has lots of users who uses them in the production
world, we should think twice if we want to rename the component.
BTW, now we maintain the camel-http and camel-http4 components at the
same time, fix the same issue at these two components. I don't think we
are planing to deprecate it now.
[1]http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/camel-http4-wiki-page-td3360572.html
On 4/10/12 4:24 AM, 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
--
Willem
----------------------------------
CamelOne 2012 Conference, May 15-16, 2012: http://camelone.com
FuseSource
Web: http://www.fusesource.com
Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English)
http://jnn.javaeye.com (Chinese)
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo: willemjiang
