Comments inline,
Hadrian
On 08/31/2011 03:34 PM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
So what are your thoughts about that?
>
Camel 2.x should be kept backwards compatible and API stable.
We have end users who build custom components on top of the Camel file
component and rely on the API being as is.
That is only true for APIs consumed by users (both kinds: end users and
component writers). It is much less relevant for code we consume ourselves.
The camel-ftp component is built on top of the file component and the
generics help making this possible.
And there are other ways to handle that.
Back in the days when the file component was created for camel 2.0, it
was meant to be a building block for file based components such as
- ftp
- commons-vfs
- a webdav component
It still makes sense to have it as a base component for file based
components. Today commons-vfs is a dead project. But we frankly still
miss a webdav component.
Unfortunately true for commons-vfs, and it doesn't look like it'll be
revived from what I could get.
For Camel 3.0 we may consider adjusting pieces of it, if it makes sense.
So to re-iterate my thoughts. Keep the 2.x as is.
Consider changes for Camel 3.0 if it makes sense and is feasible.
Christian, what about leaving this for 3.0? I agree it needs to be done
and it's certainly feasible, but I am not sure it's that urgent.
Hadrian
