I actually personally passionately hate not using RouteBuilders so for me BP really is about inversion of control and I prefer argument to properties so I can easily test the same code, not to mention I never have to dig for a NPE bean wiring in large systems.
/je > On Aug 27, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Brad Johnson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Agreed that it is philosophical and can be contentious. I just started using > CDI via pax-cdi and Camel because Camel 2.17 has better support. Also I think > the pax-cdi that Guillame and I think JB Onofre created are relatively new. > So I've just started using and have a project using it without any Blueprint > XML which I've been using for the past number of years. That required a > switch to using the Java DSL for the routebuilder but I didn't find that too > painful. > > Brad > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Johan Edstrom <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I’ve never seen DS used in the wild other than in places where say > central infrastructure IT provides container services and frameworks. > > Still have to see a lot of CDI use and with PaaS offerings and Spring > revamps and a lot of push BP is from what I gather the only viable > alternative. > > Just my 0.02c. > > Since most developers out there just see it as a tool or necessary evil > in a corporate setting, they don’t really grok services, registrations, > proxies, > NamespaceHandlers, SPI providers and so on anyways. > > I think it is a very philosophical debate. > > /je > > > On Aug 27, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Brad Johnson <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > While I understand the benefits of DS I'm wondering if it makes much > > difference for end users. I mean if I were creating a library for commons, > > XStream, Beanio or something else then it makes a lot of sense to expose it > > via DS. > > > > But when creating end user bundles with Camel routes, beans, interfaces, > > and OSGi services the service damping provided by blueprint seems like a > > positive benefit in that one doesn't have to worry about start up order. > > > > That's doubly true now that I've been working with pax-cdi and Camel. I'd > > say the development time is cut in half. The OSGiSeriviceProvider (sp?) > > annotation still uses blueprint proxies behind the scenes but I don't think > > that's a problem. What it does do is eliminate the need for all the XML > > configuration which can result in typos and other issues. > > > > What are the views on this? > > > > Brad > >
