+1 I think one of the main things camel is missing is a routing engine. Like you wrote, currently each processor calls the next. Aspects like asynchronous behaviour, transaction and security are also implemented as processors.
I think what we need is a runtime model of a camel route that represents the route without aspects. The aspects should then be executed by the routing engine without blowing up this model. This change is pretty severe though. I am not sure if we can refactor the camel core and keep it even somewhat compatible. I also fear that once we start these changes there is no way back and we might risk having an instable branch for a long time. So we have to reduce this risk in some way. Christian On 19.02.2013 01:21, Raul Kripalani wrote: > Hello team, > > We use a recursive model in our routing engine to chain processors with one > another to process exchanges. > > This results in lengthy stacktraces and increased memory usage due to local > variable retention for longer than strictly needed, IMHO. This recent > question on Stack Overflow is a typical (short!) stacktrace: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14734983/camel-ftp-intermittent-issue. > Debugging > it can be daunting for users. > > Moreover many infrastructural Processors are woven implicitly along the > processor chain. Maybe this logic should belong elsewhere (the routing core > itself?). > > Now that the Camel routing model is consolidated, can we start thinking > about moving towards an iterative routing approach? I feel the recursive > approach worked wonders when Camel was still a baby and the architecture > was heavily evolving: basically any processor, at any point, could do > anything to the exchange. And everything was a processor. Flexible and > versatile! > > But now that the concepts are well rooted, I feel we need to formally > define "the routing process", rather than leaving it all up to processors > to be assembled in the right order. > > I realize my proposal may sound somewhat abstract at this point, but before > going to further length, I want to gauge if my concern is shared. > > What do you think? > > Raúl. > -- Christian Schneider http://www.liquid-reality.de Open Source Architect http://www.talend.com
