Guillaume, you pay a price no matter what, if you do something or if you
don't. I really don't want to talk about a solution, but the
DefaultComponent already has a @Deprecated preProcessUri(String uri)
intended to convert a current uri like String to an equivalent valid
form (and log the new form, so that users can update their code without
much pain). The only thing we need to do is to go through each
component, define a valid form and implement preProcessUri (hopefully in
2.11.0) and then remove it altogether in 3.0 (and only leave an external
tool maybe for those who migrate from old versions straight to 3.0). In
your example, it's just a matter of using parenthesis vs curlies and $
sign.
And by the way, nothing should be affected in 2.x, tests should continue
to work without changes, current syntax will be supported along a new,
valid syntax (and preProcessUri would provide the conversion internally).
There are solutions. Is there willingness? Lazy consensus doesn't seem
to cut it, because discussions are avoided and then we come back to the
same thing over and over again. Now we have a vote, so hopefully we'll
put this issue to rest soon.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 06/20/2012 11:31 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Wouldn't it affect basic things such as the file component which uses
endpoints such as
file://inbox?expression=backup/${date:now:yyyyMMdd}/${file:name}
and also the properties component and all camel placeholders such as
properties:{{cool.end}}
I don't really think the change is worth it if those kind of things
are affected.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea<hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
As I mentioned before, to me this is a no-brainer. We all advertised for
almost 5 years that Camel uses URIs. That is not true, it doesn't really.
Next there is the problem of parsing. In Camel it is ambiguous how a
configuration string (a la URI) looks like. You could say it's ok if the
parsing were done by a component, but it's not, it's done in the core, it's
error prone and issues creep in all the time. A couple of more recent ones
related to the use of '%' were the trigger for this discuss. There is a log
of unnecessary code (and buggy too) we could get rid of and make things more
predictable.
I understand the readability argument. I think however that if a component
designer payed attention to the spec when defining the URI, we wouldn't be
in this mess and URIs could be readable too. In parenthesis (pun intended),
parenthesis are unreserved chars (and hence safe to use), while square and
curly brackets are not. My suggestion: read the spec.
For edge cases encoding may be necessary, but that's known and expected for
any other technology out there, most notably REST that uses URLs left and
right. I don't see users being frustrated with Camel doing what's pretty
much expected and unambiguous.
Then there is the issue of tools and other libs using URIs. It is impossible
to generate a URI consumed by camel, because by using URIs, the String form
is encoded. That totally throws Camel (that encodes once more) off.
Now validation. Yes, it's not completely separate. I meant it's separate for
the purpose of this discussion. Actually validating URIs is much easier than
validating Strings with an unknown syntax.
Hadrian
On 06/20/2012 08:43 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Well, I'm not sure why you consider that separate. I don't see the
point in forcing the user to use encoded characters which lessen the
readability if the uri is not correct at the end.
Also what's the drawback in encoding the uri ? At the end, the uri
encoding is correct, but it gives the user more ease of use.
Can you point to such drawbacks or problems using such uris ? (sorry
if I missed some previous discussions).
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea<hzbar...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Proper uri syntax and validation are 2 separate issues. This discussion
is
about the syntax. Since it's just syntax (proper encoding) I don't see
any
risk of loosing features and I agree we shouldn't.
Hadrian
On 06/20/2012 03:02 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Do you have any particular example ?
I know for example activemq uses uri in an extended way with
parenthesis and commas and I'm not sure they are completely valid.
If getting back to real uris means loosing some features, that needs
to be made clear.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea<hzbar...@gmail.com>
wrote:
This is not a new topic, but it looks like it's coming back in
different
threads. Since this is is the underlying issue, I'd suggest clarifying
this
first.
At the core of the issue is a call to
UnsafeUriCharactersEncoder.encode(uri)
in DefaultComponent.createEndpoint(String), that made camel silently
accept
invalid URIs and then opened the gates to component writers using URIs
that
are not URIs. This behavior was there from the very beginning of Camel.
(I
refactored that code to introduce a deprecated from start preProcessUri
that
provided a path for cleaning up before camel-3.0, but that's a separate
topic).
To me, personally, using valid URIs for endpoints is a no-brainer, but
I
sense that there is disagreement on that.
Thoughts?
Hadrian
