Hi
all of the 9 @Test by WebsocketComponentTest are now fixed and enabled
again.
Babak
Charles Moulliard wrote
>
> Babak,
>
> Maybe the two tests commented could be removed as they are coming from
> initial upload when the code was mainly based on WebSocketComponent and
> not
> really using W
Babak,
Maybe the two tests commented could be removed as they are coming from
initial upload when the code was mainly based on WebSocketComponent and not
really using WebSocket Endpoint. I have put them in comment as I haven't
had the time to think if we should keep them or not (was pretty busy la
Hi
+1 to postpone this for 2.11 and bring the 2.10 release asap out the door,
as I think we're now in a good shape for this (mostly because of your own
hard work :-) )
BTW as I've already mentioned by the "[DISCUSS] - Apache Camel 2.10 release"
thread there are still tests being commented out:
Hi
I have logged a ticket about this
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-5364
I don't think we got the time to work on this now. So I have scheduled it
for 2.11.
Also I can see that camel-websocket needs to mature a bit more, for example
the last commit by Charles is a bit "hacky".
And I
+1
Regards
JB
On 06/11/2012 11:38 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
Hi
In Camel 2.10 we introduce a new component: camel-websocket.
Its currently based on Jetty, and thus requires jetty to be used.
In recent time the component was enhanced to support SSL with websocket as
well. That change brings in a l
+1
On Jun 12, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Christian Müller wrote:
> +1 from my point of view.
>
> Christian
>
> Sent from a mobile device
> Am 11.06.2012 18:52 schrieb "Daniel Kulp" :
>
>>
>> This does make a lot of sense to me. websocket is really a standard for
>> which there could be multiple imp
+1 from my point of view.
Christian
Sent from a mobile device
Am 11.06.2012 18:52 schrieb "Daniel Kulp" :
>
> This does make a lot of sense to me. websocket is really a standard for
> which there could be multiple implementations. Thus, the component name
> really should be the implementation
This does make a lot of sense to me. websocket is really a standard for
which there could be multiple implementations. Thus, the component name
really should be the implementation, not the standard. Otherwise you get
into the whole "camel-http" issue again of having multiple things that CO
Hi Claus,
I completely agree on your proposition as we reuse pieces of code between
the different (same) camel components (jetty, websocket but also cometd) as
they increase "maintenance" costs.
Point 1) --> +1 to merge camel-jetty, camel-websocket and camel-cometd
The most important thing will
