I'm +1 to the idea. If we call it a URI, then it needs to be a URI. If this vote does not pass, then we would need to find a new name (configuration string?) and update the documentation and such to reflect that this is NOT a URI.
In particular, I'm +1 for full validation for 3.0. For 2.x (including porting back to 2.10 and maybe 2.9.x), we should allow the current URI's but make sure a nice big fat warnging is displayed somehow so the user will know that what they have entered is not a URI. Dan On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 08:37:33 PM Hadrian Zbarcea wrote: > Using URIs to identify and configure Endpoints is a notable Apache Camel > innovation. This feature was present in Camel from its first release. > The definition of the URIs syntax in unambiguous and defined in RFC-2396 > [1]. > > Some components introduced along the way do not use valid URIs and this > needs to be corrected. This vote is intended to formalize the apparent > lazy consensus in the [discuss] thread [2] on the dev@ list. This vote > reflects agreement with the principle only. If this vote passes the > details of the solution will be fleshed out later. > > > [ ] +1 Camel MUST use valid URIs for Endpoint configuration > [ ] -1 Camel does not need to use valid URIs (please provide reason). > > Vote is open for at least 72 hours. -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
