On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:53 PM, sgargan<sgar...@qualcomm.com> wrote: > > Cheers Claus. The ant exclusions sound like a good idea. Let me take a look > at what that would involve. Cool we love contributions. Feel free to create a JIRA ticket for the idea and you could write a comment in there that you are looking into it.
http://camel.apache.org/contributing.html > > thx for your help, > > ste > > > Claus Ibsen-2 wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, sgargan<sgar...@qualcomm.com> wrote: >>> >>> In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as beans in a >>> Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon >>> intialization >>> e.g. >>> >>> <bean id="simpleHttpRoute" class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute" /> >>> >>> This bean would have been added to the context when the following block >>> of >>> code in in the installRoutes method of the CamelContextFactoryBean was >>> executed >>> >>> protected void installRoutes() throws Exception { >>> if (autowireRouteBuilders != null && >>> autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) { >>> Map builders = >>> getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class, true, true); >>> if (builders != null) { >>> for (Object builder : builders.values()) { >>> getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder) builder); >>> } >>> } >>> } >>> >>> In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of a fix for >>> the >>> following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context defined >>> routes >>> do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for dropping this? >>> Was >>> it considered harmful? >> You can use the <routeBuilder ref="simpleHttpRoute"/> in <camelContext>. >> >> Yes it was considered to magical. What if you have 2 camel contextes >> then they would both >> load up all the route builders they could find as spring beans. >> >> And for users coming in to maintain the code would not be able to figure >> out >> how the routes are kick started. >> >> Yet alone the <package> could be a bit difficult to understand. >> That reminds me, maybe if it was named package-scan it would be easier >> to hint that. >> >> >>> >>> I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders it finds >>> in >>> packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this mechanism, >>> for >>> instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live in the >>> same >>> package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that complicate >>> testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you configure the >>> RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties files, it is >>> much >>> cleaner to define the routes as beans. >> >> I have been wondering if we should add ANT files matcher here as well, >> so you can >> specify includes/excludes as well. >> >>> >>> Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is there a >>> different mechanism to do setup Routes this way? >> Yes the <routeBuilder ref> tag. >> >> >>> >>> Thanks in advance >>> >>> Stephen. >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html >>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Claus Ibsen >> Apache Camel Committer >> >> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com >> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23987836.html > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- Claus Ibsen Apache Camel Committer Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
