The point that you raise here is not new and is certainly a thing that we should take care in the future of Camel as they improve the readability/expressiveness of a camel route by adding a 'concern' which is not specifically link to a processor, component but add a global behavior to a camel route like 'transacted'. The questions that we will have immediately is we offer the possibility to extend or add new verbs will be : - Is the verb link to a processor, component, interceptor or link to another camel route ? - What is the scope : 'local' to my camel route or just where we add it in the camel route ? - Verb should be perhaps decorrelate from the route itself like onException, interceptFrom to avoid my previous questions
ex. audit().enable() from().....to() On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Denis Krizanovic < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Guys, > > Just wondering if it's a good idea to extend the DSL with a custom verb. > Our goal is to remove the "non-functional" concerns out of the route > configuration. In particular, by adding a > > .audit("message here") > > This verb generates an ibm cbe event and sticks it on the queue. > > We've tried creating a component, but we get something like; > > .to("audit:monitoring?eventtype=CreateCustomer&msg=message%20here" > > which ends up looking quite ugly. > > We've been using processors until now, but I think the readability of an > additional verb would be very expressive compared to a new component. > > Any advice/guidance. > > thanks, > dk- > -- Charles Moulliard Apache Committer / Architect @RedHat Twitter : @cmoulliard | Blog : http://cmoulliard.github.io
