On 26 October 2010 19:21, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote: > There are a few issues we need to sort out. One is that with something like > this: >> from("blackboxroute1://out")... > You'd have to deal with naming. If everybody will define her "blackboxroute1" > you'll have to deal with name clashes.
Sure - but thats what Spring / Guice / JNDI already do. The scheme names in Camel come from your IoC container which already deal nicely with name clashes. > You can do something like "route:blackboxroute1://out". How does an extra level of indirection help solve naming clashes? > Then the lightweight part I would like not to get lost in this discussion, as > in no interceptors, no dlc. Don't follow. We're talking Camel all the way down here; so nothing gets lost. We're just talking about wrapping Camel routes inside a component for 'data hiding' and easier composition. > You can then have processing pipelines (as in subroutes, not camel pipelines, > I hope not creating confusion) that can be developed by independent groups > and reused. > Of course something like that can only be done today with direct: and seda: > based routes, but we can simplify that. > > @James, I'll be in London for a couple of days. If you wanna chat about this > over beer on Thu evening (your treat :) ), please let me know. Thanks; though I'm out in the sticks these days (125 miles away) and unfortunately its my turn to babysit. Maybe next time! -- James ------- FuseSource Email: [email protected] Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: jstrachan Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ Open Source Integration
