I think the component developers should aware these header if they want to use them in their component.
I have a quick question about this change of camel-cxf component. As you know cxf message using the dots name as the header key, like the Message.RESPONSE_CODE, Message.PROTOCOL_HEADERS etc. These headers are used wildly in camel-cxf component and application user may use them direly in their processor if they familiar with CXF. If we want to support the CamelCase style header key in camel-cxf component.Do we need to extract mapping layer between the camel-cxf message and cxf message? I don't know if we can get enough benefits to overcome the inconvenience of CamelCase style header. For the JMS , we map the header key with dot separator to slash separator back and forth in the JMS transport binding layer. And we can isolate this kind of special in JMS. Just my 2 cents. Willem William Tam wrote: > I agreed with the convention. Just one question, are we going to have > component neutral headers that can be understood by more than one > component? If we are, what's the convention and where should they go > in the source? The obvious reason is the "interoperability" between > components. For example, if I am writing a component that needs to > understand http headers. my component will then have to check for > CamelHttpResponseCode and CamelRestletResponseCode to be able to work > with Http and Restlet components. > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:58 AM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi >> >> We have a bullet on the Camel 2.0 design page: >> http://camel.apache.org/camel-20-design.html >> >> Bullet: >> using Camel${component}${name} pattern as header keys instead of using >> package names with dots that isn't likely to be transported by JMS or >> other transport types >> >> Currently we have mixed content using the old style (using package >> names) and the new style. >> What I would like to get done before we have a M1 version is to get >> this fixed beforehand. >> >> As the change involves looking into all components and fixing it one >> by one it would take some time. >> >> If you are in doubt why we should do it, then i will quote what >> Jonathan wrote on IRC >> >> "this is CamelCase style" >> >> Well spotted Jon, of course we should have CamelCase in Camel :) >> >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> >> >> -- >> Claus Ibsen >> Apache Camel Committer >> >> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com >> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ >> >
