Hi Stephen, Claus created a same requirement[1] as yours, but I like your scanner with exclude and include option more :)
Thanks for your contribution. [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-1695 Willem sgargan wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >> >
