Hi As part of this change I propose to move the common key constants we have scattered in the camel-core into Exchange as Willem Jiang have done for a few ones already. The we have a single central interface that end users can inspect and see the constants for the keys if they need to lookup in a header/property on a Exchange.
If the Exchange interface is not a liked place to store them we can use a regular Constants class instead. Any thoughts? Remember this is just a constant for the key, not the actual string literal used as key. This issue is still debated, whether CamelCase or the old dot style. On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:58 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/
