You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@camel.apache.org by Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com> on 2008/11/21 08:56:08 UTC
[HEADS UP] Using verbs for the EIP actions
Hi
In the CAMEL-64[1], we are talking about using the verbs for EIP actions.
Current Camel's DSL and Spring configruation file are using noun to
define the routing rules.
Such as
from(seda:a).throttler(10).to(mock:result);
<camelContext id="camel"
xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
<route>
<from uri="seda:a" />
<throttler maximumRequestsPerPeriod="3" timePeriodMillis="30000">
<to uri="mock:result" />
</throttler>
</route>
</camelContext>
it will be better if we make DSL like this
from(seda:a).throttle(10).to(mock:result);
As we discussed in the JIRA, it is impossible to make the Spring schema
support old nuns and new verbs at same time.
Since we are working on Camel 2.0, it will be painless if we directly
move on to use the verbs instead of still supporting nuns in DSL and
Spring configuration.
Any thoughts ?
[1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-64
Willem
Re: [HEADS UP] Using verbs for the EIP actions
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
Hi
Would be interesting to get a count of how many types should be
changed. Maybe it's not to many and the creating two sets of .jars is
overkill.
/Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting idea, but in that case, I'd rather put the old ones in a
> separate package. Or put both dsls in separate jars (and use one or the
> other).
>
>
> On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure how backward compatible we want to remain. It could be
>> possible to put the new java DSL route builders in a new package or
>> class so that it is possible to one day provide a backward
>> compatibility support. Not that we have to do that day 1 of the 2.0
>> release..
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agreed. We shouldn't even be thinking of keeping two sets of DSL methods
>>> for
>>> the 2.0 release, would be too messy. I'd say go for it!
>>>
>>> BTW we've been keeping track of API breaks in the 2.0.0 release notes
>>> just
>>> so users are aware of this
>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAMEL/Camel+2.0.0+Release
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Willem Jiang
>>> <wi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> In the CAMEL-64[1], we are talking about using the verbs for EIP
>>>> actions.
>>>> Current Camel's DSL and Spring configruation file are using noun to
>>>> define the routing rules.
>>>>
>>>> Such as
>>>> from(seda:a).throttler(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>
>>>> <camelContext id="camel"
>>>> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
>>>> <route>
>>>> <from uri="seda:a" />
>>>> <throttler maximumRequestsPerPeriod="3" timePeriodMillis="30000">
>>>> <to uri="mock:result" />
>>>> </throttler>
>>>> </route>
>>>> </camelContext>
>>>>
>>>> it will be better if we make DSL like this
>>>> from(seda:a).throttle(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>
>>>> As we discussed in the JIRA, it is impossible to make the Spring schema
>>>> support old nuns and new verbs at same time.
>>>>
>>>> Since we are working on Camel 2.0, it will be painless if we directly
>>>> move on to use the verbs instead of still supporting nuns in DSL and
>>>> Spring configuration.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts ?
>>>>
>>>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-64
>>>>
>>>> Willem
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jon
>>>
>>> http://janstey.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Hiram
>>
>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://open.iona.com
>
>
Re: [HEADS UP] Using verbs for the EIP actions
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
hard to argue against that point :)
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:55 PM, raulvk <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, I was just following this thread and even though I am not a
> committer I thought it would be OK if I put it my 2 cents...
> Don't you think that moving the old noun-based DSL to a different
> package than the current one would defeat the purpose of
> backward-compatibility? If this was done, I believe that all current
> code would still need to be changed to reference the newly package
> that contains the old DSL, therefore disarming the
> backward-compatibility of this solution...
>
> Am I right?
>
> 2008/11/21 Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>:
>> Interesting idea, but in that case, I'd rather put the old ones in a
>> separate package. Or put both dsls in separate jars (and use one or the
>> other).
>>
>>
>> On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure how backward compatible we want to remain. It could be
>>> possible to put the new java DSL route builders in a new package or
>>> class so that it is possible to one day provide a backward
>>> compatibility support. Not that we have to do that day 1 of the 2.0
>>> release..
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. We shouldn't even be thinking of keeping two sets of DSL methods
>>>> for
>>>> the 2.0 release, would be too messy. I'd say go for it!
>>>>
>>>> BTW we've been keeping track of API breaks in the 2.0.0 release notes
>>>> just
>>>> so users are aware of this
>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAMEL/Camel+2.0.0+Release
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Willem Jiang
>>>> <wi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> In the CAMEL-64[1], we are talking about using the verbs for EIP
>>>>> actions.
>>>>> Current Camel's DSL and Spring configruation file are using noun to
>>>>> define the routing rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> Such as
>>>>> from(seda:a).throttler(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>>
>>>>> <camelContext id="camel"
>>>>> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
>>>>> <route>
>>>>> <from uri="seda:a" />
>>>>> <throttler maximumRequestsPerPeriod="3" timePeriodMillis="30000">
>>>>> <to uri="mock:result" />
>>>>> </throttler>
>>>>> </route>
>>>>> </camelContext>
>>>>>
>>>>> it will be better if we make DSL like this
>>>>> from(seda:a).throttle(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>>
>>>>> As we discussed in the JIRA, it is impossible to make the Spring schema
>>>>> support old nuns and new verbs at same time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we are working on Camel 2.0, it will be painless if we directly
>>>>> move on to use the verbs instead of still supporting nuns in DSL and
>>>>> Spring configuration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts ?
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-64
>>>>>
>>>>> Willem
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Jon
>>>>
>>>> http://janstey.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Hiram
>>>
>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>>
>>> Open Source SOA
>>> http://open.iona.com
>>
>>
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Open Source SOA
http://open.iona.com
Re: [HEADS UP] Using verbs for the EIP actions
Posted by Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>.
+1 for better fluent DSL and won't support the old noun-based DSL.
Here is one thing that I found recently, The Enterprise Integration
Patterns book uses noun for the EIP action, if you take a look EIP table
of content[1] and the camel EIP wiki[2], you can find out that.
Here is my question about the Spring configuration even the GUI of EIP
which is based on camel.
Do we still use the noun for the EIP action to coordinate with the EIP
book or use the verb to coordinate with the JAVA DSL?
My suggestion is just change the JAVA DSL part (The method names in the
ProcessorType.java) , and leave the org.apache.camel.model's *Type.java
name alone.
Thoughts?
[1] http://www.eaipatterns.com/toc.html
[2] http://cwiki.apache.org/CAMEL/enterprise-integration-patterns.html
Willem
Well, we can go ahead.
Claus Ibsen wrote:
> Hi
>
> Yeah as well we have fluent builders we should have fluent "read load
> the DSL" so it makes fluent English ;)
>
> But I do see so many types needed to be renamed so if we could compile
> the list then it would probably be max 10 and that is not to bad. And
> if the compiler anyway spits out something to fix then this is the
> best time to get the DSL aligned to proper fluent English routing
> language
>
> /Claus Ibsen
> Apache Camel Committer
> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Roman Kalukiewicz
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I believe we shouldn't have totally different jar for second API.
>> Basically I would say, that it is 2.0 release, so it is OK to break
>> API compatibility.
>>
>> Why should we support backward compatibility with just DSL while we
>> don't support it with Processors (generics are removed), so what
>> people have will not compile with new Camel anyway. Changes you
>> propose are not hard to fix, so if fix is needed, then why should we
>> care.
>>
>> I would rather discuss if this change is really needed. Honestly saing
>> I don't care, but there is a small reason to keep it as it was -
>> backward compatibility in the sense, that there will be less things to
>> fix.
>>
>> For me split() or splitter() is not a big change. It is just the way
>> we see our camel 'flows'. Are they commands to execute one after
>> another (then split this) or they describe logical elements that build
>> the flow (then there is a splitter). Anyway we should be consistent so
>> if we have 'splitter' we should have 'processor' - not
>> splitter().process(myLogic) like now.
>>
>> Romek
>>
>> 2008/11/21 Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> If the DSL changes is very small then it's more or less just search/replace
>>> - splitter => split
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> I think it's overkill to create a 2nd .jar with the old stuff. How
>>> should we maintain this?
>>>
>>> /Claus Ibsen
>>> Apache Camel Committer
>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>>> ah.. gotcha.. but then you could not incrementally migrate projects.
>>>> I.e. Ihave 500 old camel routes.. and I want to migrate 50 of them
>>>> for the next version of my app..
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The idea is to move it to a different jar, not a different package, to
>>>>> maintain backwards compatibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments and ideas always welcome!
>>>>>
>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:55 PM, raulvk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, I was just following this thread and even though I am not a
>>>>>> committer I thought it would be OK if I put it my 2 cents...
>>>>>> Don't you think that moving the old noun-based DSL to a different
>>>>>> package than the current one would defeat the purpose of
>>>>>> backward-compatibility? If this was done, I believe that all current
>>>>>> code would still need to be changed to reference the newly package
>>>>>> that contains the old DSL, therefore disarming the
>>>>>> backward-compatibility of this solution...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am I right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2008/11/21 Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> Interesting idea, but in that case, I'd rather put the old ones in a
>>>>>>> separate package. Or put both dsls in separate jars (and use one or the
>>>>>>> other).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how backward compatible we want to remain. It could be
>>>>>>>> possible to put the new java DSL route builders in a new package or
>>>>>>>> class so that it is possible to one day provide a backward
>>>>>>>> compatibility support. Not that we have to do that day 1 of the 2.0
>>>>>>>> release..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Agreed. We shouldn't even be thinking of keeping two sets of DSL
>>>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> the 2.0 release, would be too messy. I'd say go for it!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BTW we've been keeping track of API breaks in the 2.0.0 release notes
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> so users are aware of this
>>>>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAMEL/Camel+2.0.0+Release
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Willem Jiang
>>>>>>>>> <wi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the CAMEL-64[1], we are talking about using the verbs for EIP
>>>>>>>>>> actions.
>>>>>>>>>> Current Camel's DSL and Spring configruation file are using noun to
>>>>>>>>>> define the routing rules.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Such as
>>>>>>>>>> from(seda:a).throttler(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <camelContext id="camel"
>>>>>>>>>> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
>>>>>>>>>> <route>
>>>>>>>>>> <from uri="seda:a" />
>>>>>>>>>> <throttler maximumRequestsPerPeriod="3" timePeriodMillis="30000">
>>>>>>>>>> <to uri="mock:result" />
>>>>>>>>>> </throttler>
>>>>>>>>>> </route>
>>>>>>>>>> </camelContext>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it will be better if we make DSL like this
>>>>>>>>>> from(seda:a).throttle(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As we discussed in the JIRA, it is impossible to make the Spring
>>>>>>>>>> schema
>>>>>>>>>> support old nuns and new verbs at same time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since we are working on Camel 2.0, it will be painless if we directly
>>>>>>>>>> move on to use the verbs instead of still supporting nuns in DSL and
>>>>>>>>>> Spring configuration.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-64
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Willem
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Jon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://janstey.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Hiram
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>>> http://open.iona.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Hiram
>>>>
>>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>>>
>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>> http://open.iona.com
>>>>
>
Re: [HEADS UP] Using verbs for the EIP actions
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
Hi
Yeah as well we have fluent builders we should have fluent "read load
the DSL" so it makes fluent English ;)
But I do see so many types needed to be renamed so if we could compile
the list then it would probably be max 10 and that is not to bad. And
if the compiler anyway spits out something to fix then this is the
best time to get the DSL aligned to proper fluent English routing
language
/Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Roman Kalukiewicz
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe we shouldn't have totally different jar for second API.
> Basically I would say, that it is 2.0 release, so it is OK to break
> API compatibility.
>
> Why should we support backward compatibility with just DSL while we
> don't support it with Processors (generics are removed), so what
> people have will not compile with new Camel anyway. Changes you
> propose are not hard to fix, so if fix is needed, then why should we
> care.
>
> I would rather discuss if this change is really needed. Honestly saing
> I don't care, but there is a small reason to keep it as it was -
> backward compatibility in the sense, that there will be less things to
> fix.
>
> For me split() or splitter() is not a big change. It is just the way
> we see our camel 'flows'. Are they commands to execute one after
> another (then split this) or they describe logical elements that build
> the flow (then there is a splitter). Anyway we should be consistent so
> if we have 'splitter' we should have 'processor' - not
> splitter().process(myLogic) like now.
>
> Romek
>
> 2008/11/21 Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>:
>> Hi
>>
>> If the DSL changes is very small then it's more or less just search/replace
>> - splitter => split
>> etc.
>>
>> I think it's overkill to create a 2nd .jar with the old stuff. How
>> should we maintain this?
>>
>> /Claus Ibsen
>> Apache Camel Committer
>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>> ah.. gotcha.. but then you could not incrementally migrate projects.
>>> I.e. Ihave 500 old camel routes.. and I want to migrate 50 of them
>>> for the next version of my app..
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The idea is to move it to a different jar, not a different package, to
>>>> maintain backwards compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> Comments and ideas always welcome!
>>>>
>>>> Hadrian
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:55 PM, raulvk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi, I was just following this thread and even though I am not a
>>>>> committer I thought it would be OK if I put it my 2 cents...
>>>>> Don't you think that moving the old noun-based DSL to a different
>>>>> package than the current one would defeat the purpose of
>>>>> backward-compatibility? If this was done, I believe that all current
>>>>> code would still need to be changed to reference the newly package
>>>>> that contains the old DSL, therefore disarming the
>>>>> backward-compatibility of this solution...
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I right?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2008/11/21 Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting idea, but in that case, I'd rather put the old ones in a
>>>>>> separate package. Or put both dsls in separate jars (and use one or the
>>>>>> other).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure how backward compatible we want to remain. It could be
>>>>>>> possible to put the new java DSL route builders in a new package or
>>>>>>> class so that it is possible to one day provide a backward
>>>>>>> compatibility support. Not that we have to do that day 1 of the 2.0
>>>>>>> release..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agreed. We shouldn't even be thinking of keeping two sets of DSL
>>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> the 2.0 release, would be too messy. I'd say go for it!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW we've been keeping track of API breaks in the 2.0.0 release notes
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> so users are aware of this
>>>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAMEL/Camel+2.0.0+Release
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Willem Jiang
>>>>>>>> <wi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the CAMEL-64[1], we are talking about using the verbs for EIP
>>>>>>>>> actions.
>>>>>>>>> Current Camel's DSL and Spring configruation file are using noun to
>>>>>>>>> define the routing rules.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Such as
>>>>>>>>> from(seda:a).throttler(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <camelContext id="camel"
>>>>>>>>> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
>>>>>>>>> <route>
>>>>>>>>> <from uri="seda:a" />
>>>>>>>>> <throttler maximumRequestsPerPeriod="3" timePeriodMillis="30000">
>>>>>>>>> <to uri="mock:result" />
>>>>>>>>> </throttler>
>>>>>>>>> </route>
>>>>>>>>> </camelContext>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it will be better if we make DSL like this
>>>>>>>>> from(seda:a).throttle(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As we discussed in the JIRA, it is impossible to make the Spring
>>>>>>>>> schema
>>>>>>>>> support old nuns and new verbs at same time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since we are working on Camel 2.0, it will be painless if we directly
>>>>>>>>> move on to use the verbs instead of still supporting nuns in DSL and
>>>>>>>>> Spring configuration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-64
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Willem
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Jon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://janstey.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Hiram
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>>> http://open.iona.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Hiram
>>>
>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>>
>>> Open Source SOA
>>> http://open.iona.com
>>>
>>
>
Re: [HEADS UP] Using verbs for the EIP actions
Posted by Roman Kalukiewicz <ro...@gmail.com>.
I believe we shouldn't have totally different jar for second API.
Basically I would say, that it is 2.0 release, so it is OK to break
API compatibility.
Why should we support backward compatibility with just DSL while we
don't support it with Processors (generics are removed), so what
people have will not compile with new Camel anyway. Changes you
propose are not hard to fix, so if fix is needed, then why should we
care.
I would rather discuss if this change is really needed. Honestly saing
I don't care, but there is a small reason to keep it as it was -
backward compatibility in the sense, that there will be less things to
fix.
For me split() or splitter() is not a big change. It is just the way
we see our camel 'flows'. Are they commands to execute one after
another (then split this) or they describe logical elements that build
the flow (then there is a splitter). Anyway we should be consistent so
if we have 'splitter' we should have 'processor' - not
splitter().process(myLogic) like now.
Romek
2008/11/21 Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>:
> Hi
>
> If the DSL changes is very small then it's more or less just search/replace
> - splitter => split
> etc.
>
> I think it's overkill to create a 2nd .jar with the old stuff. How
> should we maintain this?
>
> /Claus Ibsen
> Apache Camel Committer
> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>> ah.. gotcha.. but then you could not incrementally migrate projects.
>> I.e. Ihave 500 old camel routes.. and I want to migrate 50 of them
>> for the next version of my app..
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The idea is to move it to a different jar, not a different package, to
>>> maintain backwards compatibility.
>>>
>>> Comments and ideas always welcome!
>>>
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>> On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:55 PM, raulvk wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, I was just following this thread and even though I am not a
>>>> committer I thought it would be OK if I put it my 2 cents...
>>>> Don't you think that moving the old noun-based DSL to a different
>>>> package than the current one would defeat the purpose of
>>>> backward-compatibility? If this was done, I believe that all current
>>>> code would still need to be changed to reference the newly package
>>>> that contains the old DSL, therefore disarming the
>>>> backward-compatibility of this solution...
>>>>
>>>> Am I right?
>>>>
>>>> 2008/11/21 Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting idea, but in that case, I'd rather put the old ones in a
>>>>> separate package. Or put both dsls in separate jars (and use one or the
>>>>> other).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure how backward compatible we want to remain. It could be
>>>>>> possible to put the new java DSL route builders in a new package or
>>>>>> class so that it is possible to one day provide a backward
>>>>>> compatibility support. Not that we have to do that day 1 of the 2.0
>>>>>> release..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed. We shouldn't even be thinking of keeping two sets of DSL
>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> the 2.0 release, would be too messy. I'd say go for it!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW we've been keeping track of API breaks in the 2.0.0 release notes
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> so users are aware of this
>>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAMEL/Camel+2.0.0+Release
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Willem Jiang
>>>>>>> <wi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the CAMEL-64[1], we are talking about using the verbs for EIP
>>>>>>>> actions.
>>>>>>>> Current Camel's DSL and Spring configruation file are using noun to
>>>>>>>> define the routing rules.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Such as
>>>>>>>> from(seda:a).throttler(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <camelContext id="camel"
>>>>>>>> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
>>>>>>>> <route>
>>>>>>>> <from uri="seda:a" />
>>>>>>>> <throttler maximumRequestsPerPeriod="3" timePeriodMillis="30000">
>>>>>>>> <to uri="mock:result" />
>>>>>>>> </throttler>
>>>>>>>> </route>
>>>>>>>> </camelContext>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it will be better if we make DSL like this
>>>>>>>> from(seda:a).throttle(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As we discussed in the JIRA, it is impossible to make the Spring
>>>>>>>> schema
>>>>>>>> support old nuns and new verbs at same time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since we are working on Camel 2.0, it will be painless if we directly
>>>>>>>> move on to use the verbs instead of still supporting nuns in DSL and
>>>>>>>> Spring configuration.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any thoughts ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-64
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Willem
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Jon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://janstey.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Hiram
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>> http://open.iona.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Hiram
>>
>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://open.iona.com
>>
>
Re: [HEADS UP] Using verbs for the EIP actions
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
Hi
If the DSL changes is very small then it's more or less just search/replace
- splitter => split
etc.
I think it's overkill to create a 2nd .jar with the old stuff. How
should we maintain this?
/Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> ah.. gotcha.. but then you could not incrementally migrate projects.
> I.e. Ihave 500 old camel routes.. and I want to migrate 50 of them
> for the next version of my app..
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The idea is to move it to a different jar, not a different package, to
>> maintain backwards compatibility.
>>
>> Comments and ideas always welcome!
>>
>> Hadrian
>>
>> On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:55 PM, raulvk wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I was just following this thread and even though I am not a
>>> committer I thought it would be OK if I put it my 2 cents...
>>> Don't you think that moving the old noun-based DSL to a different
>>> package than the current one would defeat the purpose of
>>> backward-compatibility? If this was done, I believe that all current
>>> code would still need to be changed to reference the newly package
>>> that contains the old DSL, therefore disarming the
>>> backward-compatibility of this solution...
>>>
>>> Am I right?
>>>
>>> 2008/11/21 Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Interesting idea, but in that case, I'd rather put the old ones in a
>>>> separate package. Or put both dsls in separate jars (and use one or the
>>>> other).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure how backward compatible we want to remain. It could be
>>>>> possible to put the new java DSL route builders in a new package or
>>>>> class so that it is possible to one day provide a backward
>>>>> compatibility support. Not that we have to do that day 1 of the 2.0
>>>>> release..
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed. We shouldn't even be thinking of keeping two sets of DSL
>>>>>> methods
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the 2.0 release, would be too messy. I'd say go for it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW we've been keeping track of API breaks in the 2.0.0 release notes
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> so users are aware of this
>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAMEL/Camel+2.0.0+Release
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Willem Jiang
>>>>>> <wi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the CAMEL-64[1], we are talking about using the verbs for EIP
>>>>>>> actions.
>>>>>>> Current Camel's DSL and Spring configruation file are using noun to
>>>>>>> define the routing rules.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Such as
>>>>>>> from(seda:a).throttler(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <camelContext id="camel"
>>>>>>> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
>>>>>>> <route>
>>>>>>> <from uri="seda:a" />
>>>>>>> <throttler maximumRequestsPerPeriod="3" timePeriodMillis="30000">
>>>>>>> <to uri="mock:result" />
>>>>>>> </throttler>
>>>>>>> </route>
>>>>>>> </camelContext>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it will be better if we make DSL like this
>>>>>>> from(seda:a).throttle(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As we discussed in the JIRA, it is impossible to make the Spring
>>>>>>> schema
>>>>>>> support old nuns and new verbs at same time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since we are working on Camel 2.0, it will be painless if we directly
>>>>>>> move on to use the verbs instead of still supporting nuns in DSL and
>>>>>>> Spring configuration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any thoughts ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-64
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Willem
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Jon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://janstey.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Hiram
>>>>>
>>>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>> http://open.iona.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
> Open Source SOA
> http://open.iona.com
>
Re: [HEADS UP] Using verbs for the EIP actions
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
ah.. gotcha.. but then you could not incrementally migrate projects.
I.e. Ihave 500 old camel routes.. and I want to migrate 50 of them
for the next version of my app..
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The idea is to move it to a different jar, not a different package, to
> maintain backwards compatibility.
>
> Comments and ideas always welcome!
>
> Hadrian
>
> On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:55 PM, raulvk wrote:
>
>> Hi, I was just following this thread and even though I am not a
>> committer I thought it would be OK if I put it my 2 cents...
>> Don't you think that moving the old noun-based DSL to a different
>> package than the current one would defeat the purpose of
>> backward-compatibility? If this was done, I believe that all current
>> code would still need to be changed to reference the newly package
>> that contains the old DSL, therefore disarming the
>> backward-compatibility of this solution...
>>
>> Am I right?
>>
>> 2008/11/21 Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Interesting idea, but in that case, I'd rather put the old ones in a
>>> separate package. Or put both dsls in separate jars (and use one or the
>>> other).
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how backward compatible we want to remain. It could be
>>>> possible to put the new java DSL route builders in a new package or
>>>> class so that it is possible to one day provide a backward
>>>> compatibility support. Not that we have to do that day 1 of the 2.0
>>>> release..
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. We shouldn't even be thinking of keeping two sets of DSL
>>>>> methods
>>>>> for
>>>>> the 2.0 release, would be too messy. I'd say go for it!
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW we've been keeping track of API breaks in the 2.0.0 release notes
>>>>> just
>>>>> so users are aware of this
>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAMEL/Camel+2.0.0+Release
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Willem Jiang
>>>>> <wi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the CAMEL-64[1], we are talking about using the verbs for EIP
>>>>>> actions.
>>>>>> Current Camel's DSL and Spring configruation file are using noun to
>>>>>> define the routing rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Such as
>>>>>> from(seda:a).throttler(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <camelContext id="camel"
>>>>>> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
>>>>>> <route>
>>>>>> <from uri="seda:a" />
>>>>>> <throttler maximumRequestsPerPeriod="3" timePeriodMillis="30000">
>>>>>> <to uri="mock:result" />
>>>>>> </throttler>
>>>>>> </route>
>>>>>> </camelContext>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it will be better if we make DSL like this
>>>>>> from(seda:a).throttle(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As we discussed in the JIRA, it is impossible to make the Spring
>>>>>> schema
>>>>>> support old nuns and new verbs at same time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since we are working on Camel 2.0, it will be painless if we directly
>>>>>> move on to use the verbs instead of still supporting nuns in DSL and
>>>>>> Spring configuration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any thoughts ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-64
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Willem
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Jon
>>>>>
>>>>> http://janstey.blogspot.com/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Hiram
>>>>
>>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>>>
>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>> http://open.iona.com
>>>
>>>
>
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Open Source SOA
http://open.iona.com
Re: [HEADS UP] Using verbs for the EIP actions
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
The idea is to move it to a different jar, not a different package, to
maintain backwards compatibility.
Comments and ideas always welcome!
Hadrian
On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:55 PM, raulvk wrote:
> Hi, I was just following this thread and even though I am not a
> committer I thought it would be OK if I put it my 2 cents...
> Don't you think that moving the old noun-based DSL to a different
> package than the current one would defeat the purpose of
> backward-compatibility? If this was done, I believe that all current
> code would still need to be changed to reference the newly package
> that contains the old DSL, therefore disarming the
> backward-compatibility of this solution...
>
> Am I right?
>
> 2008/11/21 Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>:
>> Interesting idea, but in that case, I'd rather put the old ones in a
>> separate package. Or put both dsls in separate jars (and use one
>> or the
>> other).
>>
>>
>> On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure how backward compatible we want to remain. It could be
>>> possible to put the new java DSL route builders in a new package or
>>> class so that it is possible to one day provide a backward
>>> compatibility support. Not that we have to do that day 1 of the 2.0
>>> release..
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. We shouldn't even be thinking of keeping two sets of DSL
>>>> methods
>>>> for
>>>> the 2.0 release, would be too messy. I'd say go for it!
>>>>
>>>> BTW we've been keeping track of API breaks in the 2.0.0 release
>>>> notes
>>>> just
>>>> so users are aware of this
>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAMEL/Camel
>>>> +2.0.0+Release
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Willem Jiang
>>>> <wi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> In the CAMEL-64[1], we are talking about using the verbs for EIP
>>>>> actions.
>>>>> Current Camel's DSL and Spring configruation file are using noun
>>>>> to
>>>>> define the routing rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> Such as
>>>>> from(seda:a).throttler(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>>
>>>>> <camelContext id="camel"
>>>>> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
>>>>> <route>
>>>>> <from uri="seda:a" />
>>>>> <throttler maximumRequestsPerPeriod="3" timePeriodMillis="30000">
>>>>> <to uri="mock:result" />
>>>>> </throttler>
>>>>> </route>
>>>>> </camelContext>
>>>>>
>>>>> it will be better if we make DSL like this
>>>>> from(seda:a).throttle(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>>
>>>>> As we discussed in the JIRA, it is impossible to make the Spring
>>>>> schema
>>>>> support old nuns and new verbs at same time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we are working on Camel 2.0, it will be painless if we
>>>>> directly
>>>>> move on to use the verbs instead of still supporting nuns in DSL
>>>>> and
>>>>> Spring configuration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts ?
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-64
>>>>>
>>>>> Willem
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Jon
>>>>
>>>> http://janstey.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Hiram
>>>
>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>>
>>> Open Source SOA
>>> http://open.iona.com
>>
>>
Re: [HEADS UP] Using verbs for the EIP actions
Posted by raulvk <ra...@gmail.com>.
Hi, I was just following this thread and even though I am not a
committer I thought it would be OK if I put it my 2 cents...
Don't you think that moving the old noun-based DSL to a different
package than the current one would defeat the purpose of
backward-compatibility? If this was done, I believe that all current
code would still need to be changed to reference the newly package
that contains the old DSL, therefore disarming the
backward-compatibility of this solution...
Am I right?
2008/11/21 Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>:
> Interesting idea, but in that case, I'd rather put the old ones in a
> separate package. Or put both dsls in separate jars (and use one or the
> other).
>
>
> On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure how backward compatible we want to remain. It could be
>> possible to put the new java DSL route builders in a new package or
>> class so that it is possible to one day provide a backward
>> compatibility support. Not that we have to do that day 1 of the 2.0
>> release..
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agreed. We shouldn't even be thinking of keeping two sets of DSL methods
>>> for
>>> the 2.0 release, would be too messy. I'd say go for it!
>>>
>>> BTW we've been keeping track of API breaks in the 2.0.0 release notes
>>> just
>>> so users are aware of this
>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAMEL/Camel+2.0.0+Release
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Willem Jiang
>>> <wi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> In the CAMEL-64[1], we are talking about using the verbs for EIP
>>>> actions.
>>>> Current Camel's DSL and Spring configruation file are using noun to
>>>> define the routing rules.
>>>>
>>>> Such as
>>>> from(seda:a).throttler(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>
>>>> <camelContext id="camel"
>>>> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
>>>> <route>
>>>> <from uri="seda:a" />
>>>> <throttler maximumRequestsPerPeriod="3" timePeriodMillis="30000">
>>>> <to uri="mock:result" />
>>>> </throttler>
>>>> </route>
>>>> </camelContext>
>>>>
>>>> it will be better if we make DSL like this
>>>> from(seda:a).throttle(10).to(mock:result);
>>>>
>>>> As we discussed in the JIRA, it is impossible to make the Spring schema
>>>> support old nuns and new verbs at same time.
>>>>
>>>> Since we are working on Camel 2.0, it will be painless if we directly
>>>> move on to use the verbs instead of still supporting nuns in DSL and
>>>> Spring configuration.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts ?
>>>>
>>>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-64
>>>>
>>>> Willem
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jon
>>>
>>> http://janstey.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Hiram
>>
>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://open.iona.com
>
>
Re: [HEADS UP] Using verbs for the EIP actions
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Interesting idea, but in that case, I'd rather put the old ones in a
separate package. Or put both dsls in separate jars (and use one or
the other).
On Nov 21, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> I'm not sure how backward compatible we want to remain. It could be
> possible to put the new java DSL route builders in a new package or
> class so that it is possible to one day provide a backward
> compatibility support. Not that we have to do that day 1 of the 2.0
> release..
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Agreed. We shouldn't even be thinking of keeping two sets of DSL
>> methods for
>> the 2.0 release, would be too messy. I'd say go for it!
>>
>> BTW we've been keeping track of API breaks in the 2.0.0 release
>> notes just
>> so users are aware of this
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAMEL/Camel+2.0.0+Release
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Willem Jiang
>> <wi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> In the CAMEL-64[1], we are talking about using the verbs for EIP
>>> actions.
>>> Current Camel's DSL and Spring configruation file are using noun to
>>> define the routing rules.
>>>
>>> Such as
>>> from(seda:a).throttler(10).to(mock:result);
>>>
>>> <camelContext id="camel"
>>> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
>>> <route>
>>> <from uri="seda:a" />
>>> <throttler maximumRequestsPerPeriod="3" timePeriodMillis="30000">
>>> <to uri="mock:result" />
>>> </throttler>
>>> </route>
>>> </camelContext>
>>>
>>> it will be better if we make DSL like this
>>> from(seda:a).throttle(10).to(mock:result);
>>>
>>> As we discussed in the JIRA, it is impossible to make the Spring
>>> schema
>>> support old nuns and new verbs at same time.
>>>
>>> Since we are working on Camel 2.0, it will be painless if we
>>> directly
>>> move on to use the verbs instead of still supporting nuns in DSL and
>>> Spring configuration.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts ?
>>>
>>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-64
>>>
>>> Willem
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Jon
>>
>> http://janstey.blogspot.com/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
> Open Source SOA
> http://open.iona.com
Re: [HEADS UP] Using verbs for the EIP actions
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
I'm not sure how backward compatible we want to remain. It could be
possible to put the new java DSL route builders in a new package or
class so that it is possible to one day provide a backward
compatibility support. Not that we have to do that day 1 of the 2.0
release..
What do you think?
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed. We shouldn't even be thinking of keeping two sets of DSL methods for
> the 2.0 release, would be too messy. I'd say go for it!
>
> BTW we've been keeping track of API breaks in the 2.0.0 release notes just
> so users are aware of this
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAMEL/Camel+2.0.0+Release
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> In the CAMEL-64[1], we are talking about using the verbs for EIP actions.
>> Current Camel's DSL and Spring configruation file are using noun to
>> define the routing rules.
>>
>> Such as
>> from(seda:a).throttler(10).to(mock:result);
>>
>> <camelContext id="camel"
>> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
>> <route>
>> <from uri="seda:a" />
>> <throttler maximumRequestsPerPeriod="3" timePeriodMillis="30000">
>> <to uri="mock:result" />
>> </throttler>
>> </route>
>> </camelContext>
>>
>> it will be better if we make DSL like this
>> from(seda:a).throttle(10).to(mock:result);
>>
>> As we discussed in the JIRA, it is impossible to make the Spring schema
>> support old nuns and new verbs at same time.
>>
>> Since we are working on Camel 2.0, it will be painless if we directly
>> move on to use the verbs instead of still supporting nuns in DSL and
>> Spring configuration.
>>
>> Any thoughts ?
>>
>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-64
>>
>> Willem
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
> http://janstey.blogspot.com/
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Open Source SOA
http://open.iona.com
Re: [HEADS UP] Using verbs for the EIP actions
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
+1 to change both the Java DSL and spring DSL.
We might need to state something on the wiki page that the samples
might be for Camel 2.0 as we use the SNIPPET tags that read from the
SVN trunk.
Yeah the API breaking in the release notes is very detailed. Jon is
setting a new standard there.
/Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed. We shouldn't even be thinking of keeping two sets of DSL methods for
> the 2.0 release, would be too messy. I'd say go for it!
>
> BTW we've been keeping track of API breaks in the 2.0.0 release notes just
> so users are aware of this
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAMEL/Camel+2.0.0+Release
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> In the CAMEL-64[1], we are talking about using the verbs for EIP actions.
>> Current Camel's DSL and Spring configruation file are using noun to
>> define the routing rules.
>>
>> Such as
>> from(seda:a).throttler(10).to(mock:result);
>>
>> <camelContext id="camel"
>> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
>> <route>
>> <from uri="seda:a" />
>> <throttler maximumRequestsPerPeriod="3" timePeriodMillis="30000">
>> <to uri="mock:result" />
>> </throttler>
>> </route>
>> </camelContext>
>>
>> it will be better if we make DSL like this
>> from(seda:a).throttle(10).to(mock:result);
>>
>> As we discussed in the JIRA, it is impossible to make the Spring schema
>> support old nuns and new verbs at same time.
>>
>> Since we are working on Camel 2.0, it will be painless if we directly
>> move on to use the verbs instead of still supporting nuns in DSL and
>> Spring configuration.
>>
>> Any thoughts ?
>>
>> [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-64
>>
>> Willem
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
> http://janstey.blogspot.com/
>
Re: [HEADS UP] Using verbs for the EIP actions
Posted by Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com>.
Agreed. We shouldn't even be thinking of keeping two sets of DSL methods for
the 2.0 release, would be too messy. I'd say go for it!
BTW we've been keeping track of API breaks in the 2.0.0 release notes just
so users are aware of this
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAMEL/Camel+2.0.0+Release
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi
>
> In the CAMEL-64[1], we are talking about using the verbs for EIP actions.
> Current Camel's DSL and Spring configruation file are using noun to
> define the routing rules.
>
> Such as
> from(seda:a).throttler(10).to(mock:result);
>
> <camelContext id="camel"
> xmlns="http://activemq.apache.org/camel/schema/spring">
> <route>
> <from uri="seda:a" />
> <throttler maximumRequestsPerPeriod="3" timePeriodMillis="30000">
> <to uri="mock:result" />
> </throttler>
> </route>
> </camelContext>
>
> it will be better if we make DSL like this
> from(seda:a).throttle(10).to(mock:result);
>
> As we discussed in the JIRA, it is impossible to make the Spring schema
> support old nuns and new verbs at same time.
>
> Since we are working on Camel 2.0, it will be painless if we directly
> move on to use the verbs instead of still supporting nuns in DSL and
> Spring configuration.
>
> Any thoughts ?
>
> [1]https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-64
>
> Willem
>
--
Cheers,
Jon
http://janstey.blogspot.com/