On Dec 1, 2011, at 1:33 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote: > Yeah the wording could be improved. Any recommendation?
Is it important to log this information as INFO level? I don't see any of the other attributes of a route logged in this fashion. Is it common that folks set autoStartup(false) and then forget to start manually and wonder why a route is not started? Wording wise, I think something like this may be better: "Route %s not started due to configured with autoStartup=false" or: "Skipping start of route %s; configured with autoStartup=false" --jason
