On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:50 PM, ravishankar.singaram <bytes2r...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Claus for the quick response. I agree Camel can't be looking at each > end user's requirement. I proposed the idea as I felt this could be a very > typical requirement for end users. > > Coming to the approach you had suggested, it looks good for us. Will this be > a new enhancement from Camel? >
Having given this some more thought, there is also the delete=true option. So what if end users don't want to delete the file sometimes? Then we would need a way to tell Camel that. So the idea of the property is maybe better in this case, as it can be used for all situations. Using noop in the name, maybe reflect the fact that the file should be left as is. Then it covers both the move/delete situations. CamelFileNoop=true Though we could still have the notion of empty/null response from moveExpression should be a noop as well. Although some people may want to have an exception being thrown in case there is a bug in their code? Any thoughts? > > > ----- > Ravishankar Singaram > Technical Lead > Amadeus Software Labs > -- > View this message in context: > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Camel-Move-specific-exchanges-ONLY-to-a-different-location-tp5720833p5720928.html > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- Red Hat, Inc. FuseSource is now part of Red Hat Email: cib...@redhat.com Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: davsclaus Blog: http://davsclaus.com Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
