Shouldn't Camel define a naming convention approach for it's URI schemes? This is what I noticed:
# Concatenated controlbus: cxfrs: elasticsearch: eventadmin: paxlogging: routebox: xmlsecurity: # '-' delineated bean-validator: disruptor-vm: netty-http: quickfix-client: quickfix-server: sap-netweaver: spring-batch: spring-ldap: spring-integration: spring-redis: string-template: spring-ws: * spring-neo4j # mix guava-eventbus I realize this would be a significant change to make (for the users)... but I thought that I'd at least point it out. Btw, I think rather than cxf, cxf and cxfrs... it should be cxf, cxf-ws and cxf-rs. Note: I took a peek here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme... and it seems like there is a mix between no delineator, a dash and a period. However, I personally recommend taking a leap of faith and change the scheme names for consistency... the streamlining would make it easier on the developers knowing that a certain convention is followed. -- Robert -- View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Camel-Schemes-Concatenated-vs-delineated-convention-tp5738892.html Sent from the Camel Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
