[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-14310?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16999006#comment-16999006
]
Claus Ibsen commented on CAMEL-14310:
-------------------------------------
Yeah a int vs Integer can have a little different meaning as the latter can be
undefined (eg null) where as int will be initialized to a value such as 0 etc.
Especially for java.lang.Boolean this can be used to know if it was unset
(null) then the end user has not configured it, vs we get a true or false value
etc.
> Rework Camel Main json (?)
> --------------------------
>
> Key: CAMEL-14310
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-14310
> Project: Camel
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: camel-main
> Affects Versions: 3.0.0
> Reporter: Aurélien Pupier
> Priority: Major
>
> I'm wondering in which measure it is possible to provide a clearer separation
> in the json model.
> - to have easier access to which group a property is part of:
> -- have properties contained inside the group to which it is related
> -- or to have a field group for the property
> - for properties name, to have only the suffix and not the group prefix. it
> is possible if one of the 2 previous options is implemented. It will allow
> less manipulation when accessing the model to provide completion.
> - for some of the properties, the type can be java.lang.Boolean and some
> others boolean. Maybe we can use the same for all fields? or it has a
> different expectations?
> - same for int/ java.lang.Integer
> None of this is blocking usage of the Catalog but I feel that it will be
> easier to manipulate it with a slightly different catalog. Maybe I miss some
> use cases explaining the current json format, so let's start a discussion.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
