I've been using DS annotations and XML Blueprint. If I can ditch Blueprint for CDI in 2.17, that might be a nice upgrade honestly.
On 27 August 2016 at 14:04, Brad Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > The Camel 2.17 CDI implementation will automatically pick up the > RouteBuilders. I was kicking the tires on it and was very pleased. The > RouteBuilders in turn pick up their dependencies from either in bundle > annotated beans and providers or from external OSGi services. Pretty slick. > > Matt, do you use the XML version of DS or annotations? > > Brad > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I've been using the Java DSL route builders, and you still need to use >> Blueprint just to load them via <contextScan/> in the <camelContext/> >> element. >> >> On 27 August 2016 at 13:44, Brad Johnson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I assume you mean blueprint XML routebuilders and not Java DSL >>> routebuilders? I've used the XML approach for a long time. >>> CamelBlueprintTestSupport has gotten much better but it still has >>> limitations on multiple contexts and I find I'm commonly debugging the >>> tests as much as making the code run right. It is also a bit slow and will >>> hang on occasions. >>> >>> The only issue I've noticed with CDI and the OSGi annotations is that >>> the CamelRunner for CDI uses Weld while the pax-cdi doesn't. That might be >>> an issue. CamelSCR still feels half baked. >>> >>> But I don't have hard and fast opinions about it and am interested in >>> different perspectives. >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Johan Edstrom <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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]> >>>> 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]> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
