Seriously Guillaume?
You may have noticed that *this* [discuss] thread was opened 8 days
*prior* to the vote. Initially that very few commented on. It's just
that I learned history all to well to know how lazy consensus works in
this community.
Honestly, I think that was not very well communicated in the vote thread.
I can't bind myself to a very loose proposition without knowing the
consequences. I agree it would be better to have valid uris, but not at
all costs. Anyway, it had the nice benefit of getting everyone involved
though :-)
You're welcome! The [vote] did the trick didn't it?
I think forward compatibility is just something bound to break. We should
have backward compatibility, i.e. when we release something, ensure, that
it supports the old stuff and deprecate it. To be clear, I think it's
better to have 3.0 being uri compatible with 2.x, deprecate the old
support, then have 3.1 or 4.0 remove support for old uris, instead of
having 2.11 with new uri and 3.0 not supporting the old ones.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on a few things, including for how long the
two syntax flavors coexisted and what the users@ community would prefer.
I admit making some assumptions about that, implicit in my proposal,
that may prove wrong in the future. I repeat, I am not against
supporting both, I only hoped at that time it would become unnecessary.
But then again, I may be wrong, we'll see.
If other tools were to inter-operate with Camel (and that is more and more
the case in my experience) we *must* enforce the standards. We can be
lenient with the input we accept, but we must be strict in what we produce.
To me the test is simple, if new java.net.URI(str) throws an exception,
we've got work to do.
Well, what really matters in that case is where the string comes from when
you build the uri from it. The xml / java DSL could accept invalid uri and
those be encoded later, however, this may have side effects, as people may
expect to able to use what they gave earlier in various places.
A URI is, well, a URI, there's a spec for that that everybody
understands. As there are specs for XML. Let's not talk hypothetically
and focus on a solution instead.
Cheers,
Hadrian
Hadrian
On 06/28/2012 06:24 PM, Christian Müller wrote:
If instead of
<from
uri="file://inbox?move=backup/**${date:now:yyyyMMdd}/${file:**name}&*
*idempotentRepository=#myStore"
/>
or
from("file://inbox?move=**backup/${date:now:yyyyMMdd}/${**file:name}&**
idempotentRepository=#myStore"**)
I'm forced to write
<from
uri="file://inbox?move=backup%**2F$%7Bdate%3Anow%3AyyyyMMdd%**
7D%2F%24%7Bfile%3Aname%7D&**idempotentRepository=%**23myStore"
/>
or
from("file://inbox?move=**backup%2F$%7Bdate%3Anow%**
3AyyyyMMdd%7D%2F%24%7Bfile%**3Aname%7D&**idempotentRepository=%**
23myStore")
this isn't a good user experience and a way I would like going down.
By thinking about a solution, I got some ideas:
<from uri="xxx" /> for valid URIs
<from endpoint="" /> for quasi URIs (change "endpoint" for whatever we
agreed)
and in Java, we could have:
fromUri() for valid URIs (I didn't really it, because we have to do the
same with to, inOut, inOnly, ...)
from("") for quasi URIs
But at the end, we still have to deal with not valid RFC-2396 URIs (like
Google it does). By writing this, I think we have to have some kind of
URI/endpoint string preprocessing which make sure the component/endpoint
receives a valid URI (and do not encode encoded URIs twice). And by
writing
this, I'm sure it's possible to handle this without introducing new DSL
elements or options. It may need some changes in the DefaultComponent (not
sure), but it should not be a big deal for Camel 3.0.0 where we can break
the API. Than we have one central place which is responsible for encoding
the given endpoint string and forward a valid URI for further processing.
WDYT?
Best,
Christian
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Rob Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com> wrote:
This sounds reasonable to me
On 21 Jun 2012, at 18:36, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
Sounds perfect. That's exactly what I had in mind. You are proposing the
extra setting, which I am perfectly fine with.
Thanks a bunch,
Hadrian
On 06/21/2012 01:00 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
How about we add setting to the camel context which controls if the
'UnsafeUriCharactersEncoder.**encode' method is used or not?
That way folks that feel that their camel configurations MUST always
use
valid URI syntax can enable it. And the rest can continue to use the
current behavior.
Users are then in control.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea<hzbar...@gmail.com>
wrote:
In theory yes, that's how it kinda worked for many years. In practice
it
fails for all sorts of edge cases. The code that actually could be very
simple and clear is riddled with all sorts hacks. Look at the code.
Hadrian
On 06/21/2012 07:46 AM, Henryk Konsek wrote:
It seems that you want to force incompatibly between Camel 2.x and
3.0
which is a NOT "a no brainer" for me.
Good point. We will end up with ugly and backward incompatible URIs.
What about introducing "implicit URI encoding" term? Can't we just
assume that semi-URIs strings passed to the Camel DSLs are in fact
decoded URIs?
In such case:
import org.springframework.web.util.****UriUtils;
// Decoded URI passed to the component.
String decodedUri =
"file://inbox?expression=****backup/${date:now:yyyyMMdd}/${**
**file:name}";
// If we encode this URI we will end up with valid URI:
// file://inbox?expression=****backup/$%7Bdate:now:yyyyMMdd%****
7D/$%7Bfile:name%7D
String encodedUri = UriUtils.encodeUri(decodedUri, "UTF-8");
Maybe we just could validate that URI passed to the component is
valid
AFTER encoding it?
String decodedUriFromDsl = ...
String encodedUri = UriUtils.encodeUri(****decodedUriFromDsl,
"UTF-8");
assertValidUri(encodedUri);
This will guarantee that Camel uses valid URIs but won't break
contract of many existing components.
