-1
a) I am happy with the current model, and DO NOT want any changes / implications upon the Camel 2.x codebase. Its important for me that the current 2.x codebase is kept stable as is. Camel 2.10 is on the doorsteps, and Camel 2.x is now 3 years old. I want to give reasurance to the community that the 2.x is being kept as is (stability over changes). Camel 3.0 is IMHO the place where changes can be discussed and considered. Not the 2.x codebase. b) I have not yet seen any *real* end users call out on this and having issues etc. In fact the current model is very successful, and people build many Camel custom components without any troubles. And likewise using these components with the current model is easy for people to understand and do. People dont complain about the style/syntax of the endpoint uris. They are readable, easy to configure etc. And people just type what they want, without considering if its a spec valid URI, or that they need to % decimal escape certain chars etc. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percent-encoding c) Reading the reasons that Guillaume Nodet posted makes me even more convinced to keep the current model. d) I want components to be as compatible with as many Camel versions as possible. And this change causes incompatibility. e) Others dont mind either; In fact if you type this URL in your webbrowser http://www.google.dk/?q={{bla}} or I type the URL valid with the other curly brackets decimal encoded http://www.google.dk/?q=%7B%7Bbar%7D%7D Then Google dont mind either, it gives me the same page, and result Lets use on of the Camel examples then (from this page: http://camel.apache.org/file2), by typing in our web-browser http://www.google.dk/?q=file:bar?doneFileName=${file:name}.done And then press ENTER. Google search result is shown, and the address bar URL is changed to: http://www.google.dk/?q=file:bar?doneFileName=${file:name}.done#hl=da&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=file%3Abar%3FdoneFileName%3D%24%7Bfile%3Aname%7D.done&oq=file:bar%3FdoneFileName%3D%24%7Bfile%3Aname%7D.done&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.12...0.0.0.9447.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0.CdzGN56g1qA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=1deded84056d2bf9&biw=1593&bih=951 If you look then the escaped URL returned from the . file:bar%3FdoneFileName%3D%24%7Bfile%3Aname%7D.done And that is really ugly. People should not need to type that. And a good read about URL encoding is wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percent-encoding Quote from Wikipedia: Other characters in a URI must be percent encoded. Reading that page (from wikipedia), says that other characters *must* be encoded, and hence forcing people to use the ugly %NN style is seriously reducing the ease of use with Camel. 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 -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- FuseSource Email: cib...@fusesource.com Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews Blog: http://davsclaus.com Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
