I agree that unmarshal().compression() sounds better. OTOH, probably unmarshal().compressed() would be even better.
I'm not sure now whether I should try creating the patch as I planned, because what Christian suggests (extracting camel-compress) is obviously better and superior solution. If he wishes to do it, I'll be happy to contribute whatever I can. It is also an interesting point the other Christian raised - about an archives containing many files. It would be great to support tar.gz/tar.bz2 archives as well. In fact, this is not even specific to compression - I would say that a generic data format concept should support spitting/aggregation - consider MIME emails with attachments for example. I'm not that much in EAP background and camel internal design (yet?) to suggest how that aspect might be implemented however. Claus Ibsen-2 wrote: > > But it may be a bit weird doing > .unmarshal().compress() to do de-compressing :) > > So maybe .compression() is a better name for it? > > But is that much different that .unmarshal().zip() as it will also > de-compress using zip. > > For now I like option #3 the best. > > -- > 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/Zip-format-problem-tp25723682p25737304.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
