Now finally something I could work with. More inline.
Hadrian
On 06/21/2012 12:41 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
-1 This change would NOT be transparent to 2.x users. Lets not hurt our
2.x Camel community!
I think it will will be transparent. It MUST. The intent is *precisely*
to not hurt the 2.x Camel community. I said it before. Again, this is
not about how exactly a solution will achieve this goal.
This should have been a discussion about how we could
improve Camel 3.x.
Isn't there a [discuss] thread that started on 06/11? No comments there
until I started the [vote] thread (on 06/19, eight days later) for
reasons I explained already. And it turns out that my suspicions were
correct. I've seen this pattern before.
All -1s on this thread are either non technical (of the "I don't want
any change" kind) or assume a solution (lots of "%x%x" hurt my artistic
feelings). I am perfectly confident we can find a solution that both
supports the current syntax and is aesthetically pleasing.
If anyone wonders if I am frustrated, yes I am. On the plus side, we now
have an open discussion and we can talk about a solution.
From my point of view, Camel is all about being flexible and an integrating
as many technologies as possible and avoid exclusive of approaches. I
think that needs to continue even in how you configure endpoints. You
might be able to convince me that most camel components SHOULD validate
their endpoint config uri using the Java URI class. Or that components
should have a more formal way of expressing what endpoint config syntax it
expects.
Agree. Perfect. The last part, I am not sure is necessary, but certainly
an option.
java.lang.String is the most flexible and OPEN configuration java class we
have. Lets keep it that way.
Agree. What I meant was String that conform to the URI spec. The api
should stay the way it is. Sorry for not being clear enough.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:37 PM, 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<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt>
[2] http://mail-archives.apache.**org/mod_mbox/camel-dev/201206.**
mbox/%3C4FD60168.5090009%**40gmail.com%3E<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/camel-dev/201206.mbox/%3C4FD60168.5090009%40gmail.com%3E>
