kristofsajdak wrote:
>
> I really think this adds a lot of value for non technical people (e.g.
> solution consultants).
> The developers would take care of configuring ProtocolBuilder 'templates'
> and injecting them with global properties and middleware stuff. The
> solution consultants would further enhance the Builders with
> protocol stuff using the URI parameters.
>
> This saves them the trouble defining beans for every variation of a
> particurlar ProtocolBuilder template.
>
> E.g.
>
> <route>
> <from uri="direct:start"/>
> <to uri="route:foo?foo=bar"/>
> <to uri="route:foo?foo=noBar"/>
> <to uri="mock:result"/>
> </route>
>
> I guess you'd need to define the Builder with a prototype scope to pull
> something like this off ?
>
Mixing things up a bit.
I copy/pasted the snippet above from the customer poc codebase.
Based on what was discussed in this topic, it could look like
<route>
<from uri="direct:start"/>
<to uri="foo://in?foo=bar"/>
<to uri="foo://in?foo=noBar"/>
<to uri="mock:result"/>
</route>
were foo is a bean in spring, injected with let's say a BarService
middleware depedency.
2 usages of foo in the route above results in 2 foo instances.
one instance parameterized with foo = bar, the other one with foo = noBar.
--
View this message in context:
http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Abstracting-Routes-using-Components-tp3234703p3241229.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
