Luca, Can you outline either some particular business problem that you're trying to solve or some current impediment to a solution that would be remedied by your proposed design change?
Perhaps a few use case scenarios might help demonstrate the need. Just a thought. Thanks, Paul On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Luca Burgazzoli <lburgazz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes an easy way to register beans that are not really meaningful > outside the camel context and maybe beans we do not want to make > available through dependency injection so they can't be easily > modified outside. > The hierarchical nature is only to make it transparent for consumer > i.e. a service call / hystrix implementation would search in the > registry and do not care were the bean come from. > > Indeed I'm not sure it is the best option, still need to experiment about > it. > > --- > Luca Burgazzoli > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi > > > > So are you referring to some configuration for service call / hystrix > etc? > > > > The problem with the registry being hierarchical is that its backed by > > different implementations and then the user experience is different > > depending on which beans you get. For example CDI/spring has all kind > > of dependency injection magic, where as a basic map registry cannot do > > anything. > > > > So it sounds more like you are looking for an internal generic registry? > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Luca Burgazzoli <lburgazz...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello everyone, > >> > >> I'm wondering if it would make sense to have a sort of hierarchical > >> registry where the root registry is always created by the CamelContext > >> then the specific container registry adds its own registry on top and > >> the lookup would be top down. > >> > >> The motivation is that there are some beans that are only used by > >> camel and the registry is always involved so it does not make much > >> sense to have them available also on the container, i.e. the > >> ServiceCall and Hystrix configured through XML. > >> > >> This would reduce the complexity to add new definitions to the XML as > >> one do not need to create a container specific parser (blueprint, > >> spring, cdi) for object that are strictly camel-context related. > >> > >> What do you think ? > >> > >> --- > >> Luca Burgazzoli > > > > > > > > -- > > Claus Ibsen > > ----------------- > > http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus > > Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2 >
