I also seem to recall that routeTemplates haven't all functionality from
Kamelets, and you can't call all routeTemplates exactly the same from the
Kamelet component, but maybe this is not a limitation anymore.
btw In my own runtime (Assimbly) I do load all Kamelets by default, so they
are straight to use.
Raymond
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 4:24 PM ski n <raymondmees...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, calling a Kamelet has the advantage that the subroute is dynamically
> created.
>
> - Still need the to, not a separate EIP.
> - Beginners would not search for "Kamelet", but function would be more
> common
> - You still need a from statement within the Kamelet
> - Kamelet is not really part of the route, but a separate (sub)route
>
> But yeah this comes close. Maybe just call it with
> function("template").parameters() or routeTemplate("").parameters() in
> the DSL would be enough for most.
>
> Raymond
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 4:00 PM Andrea Cosentino <anco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It really seems the Kamelets' mission
>>
>> Il lun 8 gen 2024, 15:59 Pasquale Congiusti <pasquale.congiu...@gmail.com
>> >
>> ha scritto:
>>
>> > Hi Raymond,
>> > Can't be a Kamelet considered for such a feature? I think it's one of
>> its
>> > purposes as well.
>> >
>> > Pasquale.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 3:21 PM ski n <raymondmees...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Question/Discussion:
>> > >
>> > > Do you think "functions" in the Camel DSL make sense?
>> > >
>> > > Explanation:
>> > >
>> > > Say you have to following route:
>> > >
>> > > from("direct:a")
>> > > .setHeader("myHeader", constant("test"))
>> > > .to("direct:b");
>> > >
>> > > And then you have a similar route:
>> > >
>> > > from("direct:c")
>> > > .setHeader("myHeader2", constant("test"))
>> > > .to("direct:d");
>> > >
>> > > As you are setting it more or less the same you could make a
>> > routeTemplate:
>> > >
>> > > routeTemplate("someFunction")
>> > > // here we define the required input parameters (with a
>> > default
>> > > value)
>> > > .templateParameter("headerName", "myHeader")
>> > > .from("direct:a")
>> > > .setHeader("{{headerName}}", constant("test"))
>> > >
>> > > And then you can:
>> > >
>> > > from("direct:a")
>> > > .to("direct:someFunction")
>> > > .to("direct:b");
>> > >
>> > > And for the second route:
>> > >
>> > > from("direct:c")
>> > > .to("direct:someFunction")
>> > > .to("direct:d");
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > This however seems a bit cumbersome, because:
>> > >
>> > > 1. I must have a from statement in my subroute (which should be just a
>> > > function).
>> > > 2. I need to know the component of the from statement and call it
>> with a
>> > > "to" statement.
>> > > 3. I need to create the route from routeTemplates before the route
>> starts
>> > > and I need to do this everytime I use that 'function'.
>> > > 4. If I want to use the same code then I need to call the same route
>> > > multiple times,
>> > > but in certain cases this can become a bottle-neck (think of Seda
>> of
>> > JMS
>> > > Queues).
>> > > Especially when call it from hundreds of places, this maybe
>> > troublesome
>> > > (throughput or memory).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Would be easier and more direct to have like this:
>> > >
>> > > function("someFunction")
>> > > .parameter("headerName", "myHeader")
>> > > .setHeader("{{headerName}}", constant("test"))
>> > >
>> > > And then call it:
>> > >
>> > > from("direct:a")
>> > > .function("someFunction")
>> > > .to("direct:b");
>> > >
>> > > And:
>> > >
>> > > from("direct:c")
>> > > .function("someFunction")
>> > > .parameter("myHeader2")
>> > > .to("direct:d");
>> > >
>> > > On install the routes are exactly the same as the first and second
>> route
>> > > (only reused).
>> > >
>> > > What do think?
>> > >
>> > > Raymond
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
