I use blueprint, never use the graphical editor, and use quite a few Java classes anyway. One benefit to using Java classes is you can unit test them directly with JUnit.
To me the biggest benefit in the XML and blueprint are (a) easy configuration of endpoints, (b) management of OSGi services, (c) some easy ways to invoke EIPs on routes when the XML is easier to use. I never use the Java DSL but will commonly inject endpoints into my Java classes. Everyone is different. I think Claus pretty exclusively uses Java DSL. It isn't a right thing or a wrong thing. As a team you obviously have to decide. If you are running in Fuse you'll most likely at least bootstrap your bundles from blueprint even if you do use the Java DSLs. On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:27 AM, NikheelRanjan <nikheel.ran...@gmail.com> wrote: > The question is which one of the DSL implementation you want to use when > you > are going to use camel+jboss fuse based implementation. My points are: > 1.Blueprints(similar to spring DM) are best supported in osgi based > environments. > 2. XML s not only reduce the number of classes but also if working in jboss > dev studio gives you a chance to graphically design your routes through > visual editor. > 3.Configuration in XML never requires recompilation and can be easily > understood by any person who understands the basics of xml. > 4.At runtime its all on camel based components irrespective of java DSL or > spring DSL. > > My concerns: > Does using xmls/spring DSLs really give you any maintenance problems? Does > choice of DSL really matter or it just depends upon the > developers/technical > team's capability to find the comfort-ability? Please give your points as > we > have two groups in teams where one group is supporting java DSL other is > SPRING based one. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Blueprint-Spring-DSL-vs-JAVA-DSL-tp5781807.html > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
