+1 (non binding) If we'll support all existing features I see no locks here.
Best regards, Lukasz Dywicki -- Code-House http://code-house.org Wiadomość napisana przez Christian Müller w dniu 20 cze 2012, o godz. 21:57: > +1 > see my comments on [2]. > > Also because the Camel code base grows and grows because we got some good > contributions and implemented new features, making the core code base as > much easy as possible is an important thing IMO. Throwing away all the > hacks is a good possibility. > Also doing the same thing equal should be important for us and our users. > e.g. constantly using protocol://user@host:port instead of > protocol://host:port?username=xxx or so... > But this is another discussion... ;-) > > Christian > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> -1 >> >> I don't think camel endpoints are real Uris as they are not really >> used to point to a resource, though they can fall back to a URI in >> simple cases. The fact that we use URI-like syntax is I think because >> it's easy to use and quite easily understandable. We could have use >> json or whatever syntax here. We could even support multiple syntax >> (actually, json for configuring endpoints could make a lot of sense >> too as in some cases, it would be even more readable). >> >> I don't really see any problem with the way things work now, and >> changing what works just for the sake of complying with a spec we >> don't care about, is not really worth it imho. >> >> This would also lead to less coherence, as for example, the property >> placeholder syntax ${xxx} inspired from spring is used in various >> place, not only uris, but also expressions and such. That would >> raise confusion. >> >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:37 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Using URIs to identify and configure Endpoints is a notable Apache Camel >>> innovation. This feature was present in Camel from its first release. The >>> definition of the URIs syntax in unambiguous and defined in RFC-2396 [1]. >>> >>> Some components introduced along the way do not use valid URIs and this >>> needs to be corrected. This vote is intended to formalize the apparent >> lazy >>> consensus in the [discuss] thread [2] on the dev@ list. This vote >> reflects >>> agreement with the principle only. If this vote passes the details of the >>> solution will be fleshed out later. >>> >>> >>> [ ] +1 Camel MUST use valid URIs for Endpoint configuration >>> [ ] -1 Camel does not need to use valid URIs (please provide reason). >>> >>> Vote is open for at least 72 hours. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Hadrian Zbarcea >>> Principal Software Architect >>> Talend, Inc >>> http://coders.talend.com/ >>> http://camelbot.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt >>> [2] >>> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/camel-dev/201206.mbox/%3C4FD60168.5090009%40gmail.com%3E >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------ >> Guillaume Nodet >> ------------------------ >> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >> ------------------------ >> FuseSource, Integration everywhere >> http://fusesource.com >>
