Hi Claus, If using a static method inside process(...), it might be clearer to give it a more explicit name. For example:
from(...).process(copyInToOut()); - Fintan -----Original Message----- Hi The static solution is neat however it is not avail for the Spring XML routing. But I like the idea, but is the echo name a common pattern / term for such a copy-in-to-out? I think Mule has a similar component also. So it might not be to bad to introduce. Maybe it will be obsolete if the camel components is smarter / more strict about the MEP patterns the support/use. Med venlig hilsen Claus Ibsen ...................................... Silverbullet Skovsgårdsvænget 21 8362 Hørning Tlf. +45 2962 7576 Web: www.silverbullet.dk -----Original Message----- From: Hadrian Zbarcea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21. august 2008 18:32 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: echo() processor The DSL is big as it is. We add to it integration patterns, but my personal preference would be to not add things like echo(). I would more in favor of having it a (static) method that returns a processor, so one would use it like: from(...).process(echo()); My $0.02, Hadrian -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/echo%28%29-processor-tp19086322s22882p19104719.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
