I definitively need to improve my class name generator skills :-)
I'll go with:
- BaseSelectorProducer (abstract)
- HeaderSelectorProducer (implementation)
Thx guys.
---
Luca Burgazzoli
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Andrea Cosentino
wrote:
> IMO the solution with
>
> BaseSelectorProducer
IMO the solution with
BaseSelectorProducer (abstract)
HeaderSelectorProducer (implementation)
.
.
.
is the best one.
--
Andrea Cosentino
--
Apache Camel PMC Member
Apache Karaf Committer
Apache Servicemix Committer
Email: ancosen1...@yahoo.com
Twitter: @oscerd2
G
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Luca Burgazzoli wrote:
> What would be a nice name for this new producer ?
>
Yeah naming ;)
Brain storming
SelectorProducer
HeaderBasedSelectorProducer
SwitchProducer
SwitchByHeaderProducer
We could also generalize it and have a base class and then a header
b
What would be a nice name for this new producer ?
---
Luca Burgazzoli
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Luca Burgazzoli wrote:
> Yep, Handler was added just as placeholder as you know, naming is hard :-)
> Unless we want to use it also in bean binding, I think a new
> annotation would be better
Yep, Handler was added just as placeholder as you know, naming is hard :-)
Unless we want to use it also in bean binding, I think a new
annotation would be better to avoid confusion so I'd vote for
@InvokeOnHeader
---
Luca Burgazzoli
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
> Hi
>
> Y
Hi
Yeah that can help with those kind of components. You may want to use
a different name than @Handler as there is a @Handler already in
org.apache.camel for bean binding.
maybe @SwitchByHeader (if people really think of the java switch
statement) or @InvokeFromHeader, @InvokeOnHeader or somethi
Hello,
I'm working on some camel components (consul, ehcache, chronicle) and
most of the time the process to write a Producer is:
- extending DefaultProducer
- write a - sometime big - switch/case to invoke the right method for an action
So I'm wondering if it would make sense to have an annotat
