On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Claus- > > I believe that, in general, more information available to the user via JMX > is better. Being able to confirm everything is wired up is very valuable to > users-- especially ones new to the framework. Using it to change values is > more of an operational hot-fix vs a core use case, in my opinion. > > I don't know the internals to Camel enough to provide an alternative > approach, but would like to see this information available in one form or > another. Perhaps moving to an array for CamelId[] and RouteId[] in the > ErrorHandler MBean would provide a path to solve some of the issues? >
Okay you are pushing my boundaries, and I am working on a solution. > Thanks, > Matt Pavlovich > > > On 2/28/12 6:57 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> I am considering to remove error handlers mbeans from JMX as they are >> painful to track properly for context and route scoped routes, in the >> various DSLs (Java vs XML etc.). And the fact an error handler can be >> used for multiple routes, as well being a default error handler etc. >> >> Currently if you add and remove routes from Java DSL you will end up >> leaving possible not used any more mbeans for error handlers. >> >> It would just be easier to not enlist any error handlers in JMX. Does >> anyone actually use them for management? Such as changing the number >> of redelivery attempts at runtime? I do not think they provide much >> value. And thus can be removed from JMX. >> >> A related ticket would be >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-5041 >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> >> > -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- FuseSource Email: cib...@fusesource.com Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
