Hmmm.. maybe it was implemented in this way because supporting *not*
proceed in the DSL is even less intuitive! ;)
Seriously though, out of those ideas I would prefer the intercept(false)
syntax.
Cheers,
Jon
Claus Ibsen wrote:
Hi
That would potentially break the API but of course it would be more intuitive.
But then again we need to be able to NOT proceed and how should the user
specify this behaviour?
Some DSL ideas:
intercept().to("direct:killer").notProceed();
intercept().to("direct:killer").stop();
intercept().to("direct:killer").end();
intercept(false).to("direct:killer");
Any thoughts?
Med venlig hilsen
Claus Ibsen
......................................
Silverbullet
Skovsgårdsvænget 21
8362 Hørning
Tlf. +45 2962 7576
Web: www.silverbullet.dk
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Anstey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 15. april 2008 19:17
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
Yeah, I agree. Its more intuitive without the proceed()... I wonder if
there was a good reason for it being implemented in this way?
Hiram Chirino wrote:
wouldn't most folks want to proceed() when intercepting? Should we
not make that the default behavior without having to specify
proceed()?
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Claus Ibsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jonathan
Thanks a lot for the patch. I thought about the proceed method as well but since it
didn't work I assumed I was wrong as well. I couldn't imagine the "standard logging
/ kinda like AOP logging" feature was malfunction in Camel.
I will get the patch in the SVN asap, and fix the wiki.
Med venlig hilsen
Claus Ibsen
......................................
Silverbullet
Skovsgårdsvænget 21
8362 Hørning
Tlf. +45 2962 7576
Web: www.silverbullet.dk
-----Original Message-----
From: janstey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14. april 2008 02:44
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
Hey Claus,
AFAIK you need to add a proceed() at the end of an intercept() route or, as
you described, it swallows the exchange. I found a little bug in the
proceed() method as well... but this patch should fix it up.
http://www.nabble.com/file/p16669908/intercept.patch intercept.patch
Cheers,
Jon
Claus Ibsen wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> Sorry for the title but I needed to get your attention.
>
>
>
> On the wiki: http://activemq.apache.org/camel/dsl.html
>
> The interceptor sample is a good old logging sample that looks plausible
> and easy to understand. If you add intercept("log:mylogger") then Camel
> would log all the transitions.
>
>
>
> But the terrible part is that the logging example does not work as stated.
> In Camel if the interceptor kicks in it "swallows" the exchange and the
> exchange is not routed further.
>
>
>
> I have added a unit test to the came-core:
> org.apache.camel.issues.InterceptorLogTest that demonstrates the problem.
>
>
>
> If you enable the intercept() codeline the unit test fails.
>
>
>
> What is the fundamental usage for interceptors in Camel?
>
> The use case from an end user was to log all the steps so he could get an
> idea how the exchanges was actually routed - a great feature in my mind.
>
>
>
>
>
> I have created a ticket CAMEL-442 to improve the documentation for
> interceptors. I think the interceptor concept should be on its own page,
> so its easier to find in the current documentation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Med venlig hilsen
>
>
>
> Claus Ibsen
>
> ......................................
>
> Silverbullet
>
> Skovsgårdsvænget 21
>
> 8362 Hørning
>
> Tlf. +45 2962 7576
>
> Web: www.silverbullet.dk
>
>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/interceptors---something-is-terrible-wrong-tp16661322s22882p16669908.html
Sent from the Camel - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
