Re: [DISCUSS] - Moving towards Camel 2.11 release

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Babak Vahdat wrote: > +1 to turn off the checkstyle directly inside the code itself and not the > xml. As a concrete example we've got the "maximum 7 ParameterNumber rule" > being commented out since 2008 inside xml. And today in 2013 it's still > there! > +1 in

Re: [CAMEL-3.0] Start moving forward

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Christian Müller wrote: > Hi Willem, > > that's the reason why I wrote "IRC/Skype session for discussion" and not > "IRC/Skype session to make discussions"... ;-) > The proposed procedure is to use IRC to be able to discuss multiple topics > in short time. Afterwa

Re: [DISCUSS] - Moving towards Camel 2.11 release

Hi Raúl, Yes you're right! I was not aware of this //CHECKSTYLE:OFF | ON feature. Thanks for the hint! Babak Raul Kripalani wrote > Isn't it less intrusive to wrap this block in //CHECKSTYLE:OFF and > //CHECKSTYLE:ON? > > If it's really just the one-off case, changing the checkstyle rule for t

Re: [DISCUSS] - Moving towards Camel 2.11 release

+1 to turn off the checkstyle directly inside the code itself and not the xml. As a concrete example we've got the "maximum 7 ParameterNumber rule" being commented out since 2008 inside xml. And today in 2013 it's still there! Babak Willem.Jiang wrote > I think it will be more easy to maintain

Re: [DISCUSS] - Moving towards Camel 2.11 release

I think it will be more easy to maintain by adding some note on the java code. When we refactor the code, we don't need to find the XML to update the suppression line. 发自我的 iPhone 在 2013-1-24，上午6:13，Christian Müller 写道： > I prefer updating the camel-checkstyle-suppressions.xml with: > > file

Re: [camel-extra] 2.10.1 release

Will do it until the end of the week. Best, Christian On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Henryk Konsek wrote: > Hi, > > I've just created maintenance branch for Camel Extra 2.10.x. I've also > merged OSGI imports fix [2] from trunk into it. > > I'd like to start process of releasing Camel Extra 2

Re: [DISCUSS] - Moving towards Camel 2.11 release

I prefer updating the camel-checkstyle-suppressions.xml with: It's more clean IMO. I tested it and it works. Ready to commit. Thoughts? Best, Christian On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Raul Kripalani wrote: > Isn't it less intrusive to wrap this block in //CHECKSTYLE:OFF and > //CHECKSTYLE:

Re: [CAMEL-3.0] Start moving forward

Lukasz, could you have a look at [1]!? We are looking for a champion for the task "Light-weight web console" (if it has enough endorsements). If I remember right, you are playing with something what could be this light-weight web console. ;-) Do you consider to take a stab on this? [1] http://came

Re: [CAMEL-3.0] Start moving forward

Christian, could you have a look at [1]!? We are looking for a champion for the task "Split camel-core into multiple parts". We already talked about it in the past and if I remember correct, you are willing to take a stab on this. Right? Still the same? [1] http://camel.apache.org/camel-30-ideas.h

Re: [DISCUSS] - Moving towards Camel 2.11 release

Isn't it less intrusive to wrap this block in //CHECKSTYLE:OFF and //CHECKSTYLE:ON? If it's really just the one-off case, changing the checkstyle rule for the entire codebase seems overkill. Regards, Raúl. On 23 Jan 2013 22:18, "Babak Vahdat" wrote: > > > Am 23.01.13 16:16 schrieb "Claus Ibsen"

Re: [DISCUSS] - Moving towards Camel 2.11 release

Splitting the execute method of org.apache.camel.component.redis.CommandDispatcher doesn't make sense for me. I suggest to only relax the check style rule for this class. In general, 200 lines is a good limit in my opinion. Best, Christian On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Babak Vahdat wrote: >

Re: [DISCUSS] - Moving towards Camel 2.11 release

Am 23.01.13 16:16 schrieb "Claus Ibsen" unter : >On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Babak Vahdat > wrote: >> Hi >> >> Recently Bilgin did kindly integrate his camel-redis component @ GitHub >>to >> the Camel distribution, however I think currently we don't own any >>proper >> documentation for it

Re: [DISCUSS] Refactoring of Registry/Injector interface

Hi On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Claus Ibsen wrote: > Hi > > I logged a ticket to not forget about this. > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-5997 > > Will work with Lukasz proposals to get this into the 2.11 codebase, so > we have a baseline for better CDI and OSGi registry integrati

Re: [DISCUSS] - Moving towards Camel 2.11 release

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Babak Vahdat wrote: > Hi > > Recently Bilgin did kindly integrate his camel-redis component @ GitHub to > the Camel distribution, however I think currently we don't own any proper > documentation for it when 2.11.0 goes live: > > http://camel.apache.org/components.

[camel-extra] 2.10.1 release

Hi, I've just created maintenance branch for Camel Extra 2.10.x. I've also merged OSGI imports fix [2] from trunk into it. I'd like to start process of releasing Camel Extra 2.10.1. Anybody wants to object? Best regards. [1] http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/camel-extra/source/brow

Re: [CAMEL-3.0] Start moving forward

Hi As much as the time permits I will try to follow this move and maybe give my ideas & feedback to the cool new enhancements/features you are thinking about. However my involvement in this area will not be as active as many others. Looking forward to Camel 3.0 Babak -- View this message in

Re: [DISCUSS] - Moving towards Camel 2.11 release

Hi Recently Bilgin did kindly integrate his camel-redis component @ GitHub to the Camel distribution, however I think currently we don't own any proper documentation for it when 2.11.0 goes live: http://camel.apache.org/components.html It's also missing by the release notes as a new component: