On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:42 PM, sgargan<sgar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
> In the 1.6 codeline it was possible to define routebuilders as beans in a
> Spring context and have them wired into the camel context upon intialization
> e.g.
>
> <bean id="simpleHttpRoute" class="org.simple.SimpleHttpToFileRoute" />
>
> This bean would have been added to the context when the following block of
> code in in the installRoutes method of the CamelContextFactoryBean was
> executed
>
> protected void installRoutes() throws Exception {
> if (autowireRouteBuilders != null &&
> autowireRouteBuilders.booleanValue()) {
> Map builders =
> getApplicationContext().getBeansOfType(RouteBuilder.class, true, true);
> if (builders != null) {
> for (Object builder : builders.values()) {
> getContext().addRoutes((RouteBuilder) builder);
> }
> }
> }
>
> In the 2.0 codeline, this section has been removed (as part of a fix for the
> following issue/feature http://bit.ly/n6ojs ) and the context defined routes
> do not get added. I was wondering what the reason was for dropping this? Was
> it considered harmful?
You can use the <routeBuilder ref="simpleHttpRoute"/> in <camelContext>.
Yes it was considered to magical. What if you have 2 camel contextes
then they would both
load up all the route builders they could find as spring beans.
And for users coming in to maintain the code would not be able to figure out
how the routes are kick started.
Yet alone the <package> could be a bit difficult to understand.
That reminds me, maybe if it was named package-scan it would be easier
to hint that.
>
> I know the package scan can be used to initialise RouteBuilders it finds in
> packages, but it can be annoying to exclude routes from this mechanism, for
> instance where you have test RouteBuilders that happen to live in the same
> package in the test src tree, or where there are routes that complicate
> testing with setup and noise. Also in situations where you configure the
> RouteBean explicitly e.g. to inject values from properties files, it is much
> cleaner to define the routes as beans.
I have been wondering if we should add ANT files matcher here as well,
so you can
specify includes/excludes as well.
>
> Short of adding my own CamelContextAwareBean to do the same, Is there a
> different mechanism to do setup Routes this way?
Yes the <routeBuilder ref> tag.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Stephen.
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p23970613.html
> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
