Hi Raymond,
Can't be a Kamelet considered for such a feature? I think it's one of its
purposes as well.
Pasquale.
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 3:21 PM ski n <raymondmees...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Question/Discussion:
>
> Do you think "functions" in the Camel DSL make sense?
>
> Explanation:
>
> Say you have to following route:
>
> from("direct:a")
> .setHeader("myHeader", constant("test"))
> .to("direct:b");
>
> And then you have a similar route:
>
> from("direct:c")
> .setHeader("myHeader2", constant("test"))
> .to("direct:d");
>
> As you are setting it more or less the same you could make a routeTemplate:
>
> routeTemplate("someFunction")
> // here we define the required input parameters (with a default
> value)
> .templateParameter("headerName", "myHeader")
> .from("direct:a")
> .setHeader("{{headerName}}", constant("test"))
>
> And then you can:
>
> from("direct:a")
> .to("direct:someFunction")
> .to("direct:b");
>
> And for the second route:
>
> from("direct:c")
> .to("direct:someFunction")
> .to("direct:d");
>
>
> This however seems a bit cumbersome, because:
>
> 1. I must have a from statement in my subroute (which should be just a
> function).
> 2. I need to know the component of the from statement and call it with a
> "to" statement.
> 3. I need to create the route from routeTemplates before the route starts
> and I need to do this everytime I use that 'function'.
> 4. If I want to use the same code then I need to call the same route
> multiple times,
> but in certain cases this can become a bottle-neck (think of Seda of JMS
> Queues).
> Especially when call it from hundreds of places, this maybe troublesome
> (throughput or memory).
>
>
> Would be easier and more direct to have like this:
>
> function("someFunction")
> .parameter("headerName", "myHeader")
> .setHeader("{{headerName}}", constant("test"))
>
> And then call it:
>
> from("direct:a")
> .function("someFunction")
> .to("direct:b");
>
> And:
>
> from("direct:c")
> .function("someFunction")
> .parameter("myHeader2")
> .to("direct:d");
>
> On install the routes are exactly the same as the first and second route
> (only reused).
>
> What do think?
>
> Raymond
>
