Hi On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:00 AM, huntc <hu...@mac.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Claus, >> >> As per your blog request, I'd like to discuss the virtues of naming the >> async method "async" vs treating your 2.0 functionality as a new >> implementation of the existing "thread" method.
Okay I got good tunes on iTunes so was in the mood to take a stab at this. Got the seda endpoint to support request/reply where it waits for the route to be complete before returning from the original caller. So you can do: from("direct:start").to("seda:a"); from("seda:a").to("log:bar", "seda:b"); from("seda:b").delay(10).to("direct:c"); from("direct:c").transform(constant("Bye World")).to("mock:result"); And the very first message we sent to direct:start that goes to seda:a will wait at seda:a until the message exchange is complete if its a request/reply message. So what we get is the "Bye World" as response. I will later add the same options as the *threads* DSL so you can overrule this behavior. Eg to not wait for a reply if you dont care. Christopher dont say we do not listen to the community. Thanks for the feedback. >> >> When I think about concurrency I think about multiple threads of execution - >> not whether something is asynchronous. You can have something being >> asynchronous without it being multi-threaded e.g. Javascript's >> XmlHttpRequest. >> >> Thread also implies just one thread. Perhaps renaming async to "threads" and >> deprecating "thread" may be the way to go? Specifying "threads" without a >> thread pool size should perhaps default to the number of processors + 1 as a >> rule... (as per MINA?). > > Good points. threads is a good name as well. And afterall the async > DSL is capable of waiting for a response so it behaves like a single > synchronous request/reply from the caller perspective. So using > threads could be a better name. > > I have added your idea of the defaults for number of threads in the > pool to the 2.x design page > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAMEL/Camel+2.0+Design > > We have improved thread pool configuration on the roadmap for 2.1. > > > > >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Kind regards, >> Christopher >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Camel-2.0-Async-Findings---Roadmap-to-a-solution-tp23310165p23702159.html >> Sent from the Camel Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > > > -- > Claus Ibsen > Apache Camel Committer > > Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com > Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ > Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus > -- Claus Ibsen Apache Camel Committer Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus