Claus,
I've made a patch to allow the Ant like inclusion and exclusion you
suggested. I've opened an improvement Jira ticket for it with a patch
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1708.
Please shout if there is anything you'd like changed with it.
thx
ste
sgargan wrote:
>
> Cheers Claus. The ant exclusions sound like a good idea. Let me take a
> look at what that would involve.
>
> thx for your help,
>
> ste
>
>
> Claus Ibsen-2 wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Autowiring-RouteBuilders-defined-as-beans-in-Spring.-tp23970613p24027819.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
