+1
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Jonathan Anstey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Open Source SOA
http://open.iona.com
