On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:57 PM, William Tam <email.w...@gmail.com> 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.
I think each component should keep the headers in its own "namespace".
So yeah you component should check for both.
In fact it can probably just check for endsWith("ResponseCode") to
cater for different prefixes.
>
> 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/
>>
>
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
