In the implementations I’ve done, we use a mix of Java DSL and Blueprint. We have some common RouteBuilders, and we use Blueprint to configure them and wire them into a Camel Context. It’s worked very well for us.
We’ve done some similar things using camel-scr, but the configuration got a bit messy - we had to create 3 or 4 properties/cfg files to get a single route going and it was a little more difficult to diagnose configuration errors. > On Apr 27, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree with Brad's points and if you asked 100 people you'd probably get a > fairly even mix of preferences. I would favor Blueprint over Spring. > > I've been helping organizations adopt Camel for 8+ years and have generally > found blueprint to be the best mix for long term support and ramp-up of > junior and mid-level resources. I tend to see the Java DSL preference in Sr > resources and folks doing really complex tasks. > > Additionally, I find a fully loaded route with configuration, error handling, > data sources, logging can be complicated for junior and mid-level resources > to grok when they are gearing up. Additionally, sharing data sources and > services via OSGi is super handy, and an efficient transition for folks > coming from Spring / JEE concepts. > > I do think that the biggest gain to be had is being standardized across the > organization vs figuring out which has some minor benefit or trade-off. > > My $0.02 > > On 4/27/16 11:55 AM, Brad Johnson wrote: >> 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. >>> >
