Hi I have backed out on add all processors as its too much work and brings little value.
A processor must implement Service to be managementable. And those we would like to be managed such as the bigger EIPs do this already. On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Claus Ibsen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:18 AM, _Jens <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Yes, this is true. In theory it is possible to use some custom expression >> that does significant work, but most setHeader steps are probably very >> light-weight. >> >> However, this means that a custom processor used with process() needs to >> implement Service if I want to simply have some performance numbers for it >> (e.g. how often it was called). For such a case I would not necessarily be >> interested in manipulating it (e.g. starting/stopping). > > Yeah good point. I have created a ticket > https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-2055 > > >> >> Jens >> >> >> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:57 AM, _Jens <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Just debugged this a bit and it seems that processors have to implement >>>> Service to be instrumented. The processor for setHeader only implements >>>> Processor, whereas TransformProcessor extends ServiceSupport. >>>> >>> >>> Ah well spotted. I wonder if we should add management of these micro >>> processors anyway. >>> It makes more sense to have processors specific management where you >>> can manipulate them at runtime. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> _Jens wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I just checked out the new example for the JMX management in Camel 2.1. >>>>> When I run the example and browse the MBeans with JConsole, I can see >>>>> all >>>>> the processors of the route being instrumented. I then added a setHeader >>>>> to the route, but it was not shown in JConsole. However, a transform >>>>> step >>>>> I added as well was shown. What is the plan for instrumenting >>>>> processors? >>>>> Will there be some processors of some specific type that are not >>>>> instrumented? I understand that this is still work in progress, just >>>>> wanted to know what we can expect. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Jens >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: >>>> http://www.nabble.com/JMX-in-Camel-2.1---Processor-MBeans-tp25799266p25799847.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/JMX-in-Camel-2.1---Processor-MBeans-tp25799266p25800123.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 > -- Claus Ibsen Apache Camel Committer Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
