You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@camel.apache.org by Claus Ibsen <ci...@silverbullet.dk> on 2008/04/13 10:19:48 UTC
interceptors - something is terrible wrong
Hi
Sorry for the title but I needed to get your attention.
On the wiki: http://activemq.apache.org/camel/dsl.html
The interceptor sample is a good old logging sample that looks plausible and easy to understand. If you add intercept("log:mylogger") then Camel would log all the transitions.
But the terrible part is that the logging example does not work as stated. In Camel if the interceptor kicks in it "swallows" the exchange and the exchange is not routed further.
I have added a unit test to the came-core: org.apache.camel.issues.InterceptorLogTest that demonstrates the problem.
If you enable the intercept() codeline the unit test fails.
What is the fundamental usage for interceptors in Camel?
The use case from an end user was to log all the steps so he could get an idea how the exchanges was actually routed - a great feature in my mind.
I have created a ticket CAMEL-442 to improve the documentation for interceptors. I think the interceptor concept should be on its own page, so its easier to find in the current documentation.
Med venlig hilsen
Claus Ibsen
......................................
Silverbullet
Skovsgårdsvænget 21
8362 Hørning
Tlf. +45 2962 7576
Web: www.silverbullet.dk
Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
FWIW the history behind this is to mirror AOP frameworks; where an
interceptor decides when and how to proceed with an interceptor - if
at all.
e.g. you may only want to proceed if a certain filter matches, so the
interceptor might be...
filter().el("${foo.bar}").proceed()
Or you could loop around a proceed() with a try/catch or whatever
I guess a normal use case of an interceptor in a Camel context is
gonna be doing something before or after a step evaluates - so an
interceptor should usually have a proceed at some point.
I would have thought its rare that any interceptor would just gobble
up an exchange; so we could maybe add a default proceed if there is
none - and support notProceed()?
Or maybe we just log a warning if someone makes an interceptor without
a proceed()?
On 21/04/2008, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Jonathan Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hmmm.. maybe it was implemented in this way because supporting *not* proceed
> > in the DSL is even less intuitive! ;)
> >
> > Seriously though, out of those ideas I would prefer the intercept(false)
> > syntax.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jon
> >
> > Claus Ibsen wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > That would potentially break the API but of course it would be more
> > intuitive.
> > >
> > > But then again we need to be able to NOT proceed and how should the user
> > specify this behaviour?
> > >
> > > Some DSL ideas:
> > > intercept().to("direct:killer").notProceed();
> > > intercept().to("direct:killer").stop();
> > > intercept().to("direct:killer").end();
> > > intercept(false).to("direct:killer");
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > > Med venlig hilsen
> > > Claus Ibsen
> > > ......................................
> > > Silverbullet
> > > Skovsgårdsvænget 21
> > > 8362 Hørning
> > > Tlf. +45 2962 7576
> > > Web: www.silverbullet.dk
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jonathan Anstey [mailto:janstey@gmail.com] Sent: 15. april 2008
> > 19:17
> > > To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
> > >
> > > Yeah, I agree. Its more intuitive without the proceed()... I wonder if
> > there was a good reason for it being implemented in this way?
> > >
> > > Hiram Chirino wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > wouldn't most folks want to proceed() when intercepting? Should we
> > > > not make that the default behavior without having to specify
> > > > proceed()?
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Claus Ibsen <ci...@silverbullet.dk>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks a lot for the patch. I thought about the proceed method as
> > well but since it didn't work I assumed I was wrong as well. I couldn't
> > imagine the "standard logging / kinda like AOP logging" feature was
> > malfunction in Camel.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will get the patch in the SVN asap, and fix the wiki.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Med venlig hilsen
> > > > >
> > > > > Claus Ibsen
> > > > > ......................................
> > > > > Silverbullet
> > > > > Skovsgårdsvænget 21
> > > > > 8362 Hørning
> > > > > Tlf. +45 2962 7576
> > > > > Web: www.silverbullet.dk
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: janstey [mailto:janstey@gmail.com]
> > > > > Sent: 14. april 2008 02:44
> > > > > To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey Claus,
> > > > >
> > > > > AFAIK you need to add a proceed() at the end of an intercept() route
> > or, as
> > > > > you described, it swallows the exchange. I found a little bug in the
> > > > > proceed() method as well... but this patch should fix it up.
> > > > > http://www.nabble.com/file/p16669908/intercept.patch intercept.patch
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Jon
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Claus Ibsen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry for the title but I needed to get your attention.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the wiki: http://activemq.apache.org/camel/dsl.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The interceptor sample is a good old logging sample that looks
> > plausible
> > > > > > and easy to understand. If you add intercept("log:mylogger") then
> > Camel
> > > > > > would log all the transitions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But the terrible part is that the logging example does not work as
> > stated.
> > > > > > In Camel if the interceptor kicks in it "swallows" the exchange and
> > the
> > > > > > exchange is not routed further.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have added a unit test to the came-core:
> > > > > > org.apache.camel.issues.InterceptorLogTest that demonstrates the
> > problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you enable the intercept() codeline the unit test fails.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is the fundamental usage for interceptors in Camel?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The use case from an end user was to log all the steps so he could
> > get an
> > > > > > idea how the exchanges was actually routed - a great feature in my
> > mind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have created a ticket CAMEL-442 to improve the documentation for
> > > > > > interceptors. I think the interceptor concept should be on its own
> > page,
> > > > > > so its easier to find in the current documentation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Med venlig hilsen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Claus Ibsen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ......................................
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Silverbullet
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Skovsgårdsvænget 21
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 8362 Hørning
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tlf. +45 2962 7576
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Web: www.silverbullet.dk
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > View this message in context:
> > http://www.nabble.com/interceptors---something-is-terrible-wrong-tp16661322s22882p16669908.html
> > > > > Sent from the Camel - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
> Open Source SOA
> http://open.iona.com
>
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration
http://open.iona.com
Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
+1
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Jonathan Anstey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmmm.. maybe it was implemented in this way because supporting *not* proceed
> in the DSL is even less intuitive! ;)
>
> Seriously though, out of those ideas I would prefer the intercept(false)
> syntax.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
> Claus Ibsen wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > That would potentially break the API but of course it would be more
> intuitive.
> >
> > But then again we need to be able to NOT proceed and how should the user
> specify this behaviour?
> >
> > Some DSL ideas:
> > intercept().to("direct:killer").notProceed();
> > intercept().to("direct:killer").stop();
> > intercept().to("direct:killer").end();
> > intercept(false).to("direct:killer");
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> >
> > Med venlig hilsen
> > Claus Ibsen
> > ......................................
> > Silverbullet
> > Skovsgårdsvænget 21
> > 8362 Hørning
> > Tlf. +45 2962 7576
> > Web: www.silverbullet.dk
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Anstey [mailto:janstey@gmail.com] Sent: 15. april 2008
> 19:17
> > To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
> >
> > Yeah, I agree. Its more intuitive without the proceed()... I wonder if
> there was a good reason for it being implemented in this way?
> >
> > Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >
> >
> > > wouldn't most folks want to proceed() when intercepting? Should we
> > > not make that the default behavior without having to specify
> > > proceed()?
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Claus Ibsen <ci...@silverbullet.dk>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Jonathan
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot for the patch. I thought about the proceed method as
> well but since it didn't work I assumed I was wrong as well. I couldn't
> imagine the "standard logging / kinda like AOP logging" feature was
> malfunction in Camel.
> > > >
> > > > I will get the patch in the SVN asap, and fix the wiki.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Med venlig hilsen
> > > >
> > > > Claus Ibsen
> > > > ......................................
> > > > Silverbullet
> > > > Skovsgårdsvænget 21
> > > > 8362 Hørning
> > > > Tlf. +45 2962 7576
> > > > Web: www.silverbullet.dk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: janstey [mailto:janstey@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: 14. april 2008 02:44
> > > > To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hey Claus,
> > > >
> > > > AFAIK you need to add a proceed() at the end of an intercept() route
> or, as
> > > > you described, it swallows the exchange. I found a little bug in the
> > > > proceed() method as well... but this patch should fix it up.
> > > > http://www.nabble.com/file/p16669908/intercept.patch intercept.patch
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Jon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Claus Ibsen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for the title but I needed to get your attention.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On the wiki: http://activemq.apache.org/camel/dsl.html
> > > > >
> > > > > The interceptor sample is a good old logging sample that looks
> plausible
> > > > > and easy to understand. If you add intercept("log:mylogger") then
> Camel
> > > > > would log all the transitions.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But the terrible part is that the logging example does not work as
> stated.
> > > > > In Camel if the interceptor kicks in it "swallows" the exchange and
> the
> > > > > exchange is not routed further.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have added a unit test to the came-core:
> > > > > org.apache.camel.issues.InterceptorLogTest that demonstrates the
> problem.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you enable the intercept() codeline the unit test fails.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the fundamental usage for interceptors in Camel?
> > > > >
> > > > > The use case from an end user was to log all the steps so he could
> get an
> > > > > idea how the exchanges was actually routed - a great feature in my
> mind.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have created a ticket CAMEL-442 to improve the documentation for
> > > > > interceptors. I think the interceptor concept should be on its own
> page,
> > > > > so its easier to find in the current documentation.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Med venlig hilsen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Claus Ibsen
> > > > >
> > > > > ......................................
> > > > >
> > > > > Silverbullet
> > > > >
> > > > > Skovsgårdsvænget 21
> > > > >
> > > > > 8362 Hørning
> > > > >
> > > > > Tlf. +45 2962 7576
> > > > >
> > > > > Web: www.silverbullet.dk
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/interceptors---something-is-terrible-wrong-tp16661322s22882p16669908.html
> > > > Sent from the Camel - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Open Source SOA
http://open.iona.com
Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
Posted by Jonathan Anstey <ja...@gmail.com>.
Hmmm.. maybe it was implemented in this way because supporting *not*
proceed in the DSL is even less intuitive! ;)
Seriously though, out of those ideas I would prefer the intercept(false)
syntax.
Cheers,
Jon
Claus Ibsen wrote:
> Hi
>
> That would potentially break the API but of course it would be more intuitive.
>
> But then again we need to be able to NOT proceed and how should the user specify this behaviour?
>
> Some DSL ideas:
> intercept().to("direct:killer").notProceed();
> intercept().to("direct:killer").stop();
> intercept().to("direct:killer").end();
> intercept(false).to("direct:killer");
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> Med venlig hilsen
>
> Claus Ibsen
> ......................................
> Silverbullet
> Skovsgårdsvænget 21
> 8362 Hørning
> Tlf. +45 2962 7576
> Web: www.silverbullet.dk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Anstey [mailto:janstey@gmail.com]
> Sent: 15. april 2008 19:17
> To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
>
> Yeah, I agree. Its more intuitive without the proceed()... I wonder if
> there was a good reason for it being implemented in this way?
>
> Hiram Chirino wrote:
>
>> wouldn't most folks want to proceed() when intercepting? Should we
>> not make that the default behavior without having to specify
>> proceed()?
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Claus Ibsen <ci...@silverbullet.dk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi Jonathan
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for the patch. I thought about the proceed method as well but since it didn't work I assumed I was wrong as well. I couldn't imagine the "standard logging / kinda like AOP logging" feature was malfunction in Camel.
>>>
>>> I will get the patch in the SVN asap, and fix the wiki.
>>>
>>>
>>> Med venlig hilsen
>>>
>>> Claus Ibsen
>>> ......................................
>>> Silverbullet
>>> Skovsgårdsvænget 21
>>> 8362 Hørning
>>> Tlf. +45 2962 7576
>>> Web: www.silverbullet.dk
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: janstey [mailto:janstey@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: 14. april 2008 02:44
>>> To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey Claus,
>>>
>>> AFAIK you need to add a proceed() at the end of an intercept() route or, as
>>> you described, it swallows the exchange. I found a little bug in the
>>> proceed() method as well... but this patch should fix it up.
>>> http://www.nabble.com/file/p16669908/intercept.patch intercept.patch
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jon
>>>
>>>
>>> Claus Ibsen wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Sorry for the title but I needed to get your attention.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On the wiki: http://activemq.apache.org/camel/dsl.html
>>> >
>>> > The interceptor sample is a good old logging sample that looks plausible
>>> > and easy to understand. If you add intercept("log:mylogger") then Camel
>>> > would log all the transitions.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > But the terrible part is that the logging example does not work as stated.
>>> > In Camel if the interceptor kicks in it "swallows" the exchange and the
>>> > exchange is not routed further.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I have added a unit test to the came-core:
>>> > org.apache.camel.issues.InterceptorLogTest that demonstrates the problem.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > If you enable the intercept() codeline the unit test fails.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > What is the fundamental usage for interceptors in Camel?
>>> >
>>> > The use case from an end user was to log all the steps so he could get an
>>> > idea how the exchanges was actually routed - a great feature in my mind.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I have created a ticket CAMEL-442 to improve the documentation for
>>> > interceptors. I think the interceptor concept should be on its own page,
>>> > so its easier to find in the current documentation.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Med venlig hilsen
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Claus Ibsen
>>> >
>>> > ......................................
>>> >
>>> > Silverbullet
>>> >
>>> > Skovsgårdsvænget 21
>>> >
>>> > 8362 Hørning
>>> >
>>> > Tlf. +45 2962 7576
>>> >
>>> > Web: www.silverbullet.dk
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/interceptors---something-is-terrible-wrong-tp16661322s22882p16669908.html
>>> Sent from the Camel - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
RE: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
Posted by Claus Ibsen <ci...@silverbullet.dk>.
Hi
That would potentially break the API but of course it would be more intuitive.
But then again we need to be able to NOT proceed and how should the user specify this behaviour?
Some DSL ideas:
intercept().to("direct:killer").notProceed();
intercept().to("direct:killer").stop();
intercept().to("direct:killer").end();
intercept(false).to("direct:killer");
Any thoughts?
Med venlig hilsen
Claus Ibsen
......................................
Silverbullet
Skovsgårdsvænget 21
8362 Hørning
Tlf. +45 2962 7576
Web: www.silverbullet.dk
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Anstey [mailto:janstey@gmail.com]
Sent: 15. april 2008 19:17
To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
Yeah, I agree. Its more intuitive without the proceed()... I wonder if
there was a good reason for it being implemented in this way?
Hiram Chirino wrote:
> wouldn't most folks want to proceed() when intercepting? Should we
> not make that the default behavior without having to specify
> proceed()?
>
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Claus Ibsen <ci...@silverbullet.dk> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jonathan
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the patch. I thought about the proceed method as well but since it didn't work I assumed I was wrong as well. I couldn't imagine the "standard logging / kinda like AOP logging" feature was malfunction in Camel.
>>
>> I will get the patch in the SVN asap, and fix the wiki.
>>
>>
>> Med venlig hilsen
>>
>> Claus Ibsen
>> ......................................
>> Silverbullet
>> Skovsgårdsvænget 21
>> 8362 Hørning
>> Tlf. +45 2962 7576
>> Web: www.silverbullet.dk
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: janstey [mailto:janstey@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 14. april 2008 02:44
>> To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
>>
>>
>> Hey Claus,
>>
>> AFAIK you need to add a proceed() at the end of an intercept() route or, as
>> you described, it swallows the exchange. I found a little bug in the
>> proceed() method as well... but this patch should fix it up.
>> http://www.nabble.com/file/p16669908/intercept.patch intercept.patch
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jon
>>
>>
>> Claus Ibsen wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry for the title but I needed to get your attention.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On the wiki: http://activemq.apache.org/camel/dsl.html
>> >
>> > The interceptor sample is a good old logging sample that looks plausible
>> > and easy to understand. If you add intercept("log:mylogger") then Camel
>> > would log all the transitions.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > But the terrible part is that the logging example does not work as stated.
>> > In Camel if the interceptor kicks in it "swallows" the exchange and the
>> > exchange is not routed further.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have added a unit test to the came-core:
>> > org.apache.camel.issues.InterceptorLogTest that demonstrates the problem.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If you enable the intercept() codeline the unit test fails.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > What is the fundamental usage for interceptors in Camel?
>> >
>> > The use case from an end user was to log all the steps so he could get an
>> > idea how the exchanges was actually routed - a great feature in my mind.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have created a ticket CAMEL-442 to improve the documentation for
>> > interceptors. I think the interceptor concept should be on its own page,
>> > so its easier to find in the current documentation.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Med venlig hilsen
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Claus Ibsen
>> >
>> > ......................................
>> >
>> > Silverbullet
>> >
>> > Skovsgårdsvænget 21
>> >
>> > 8362 Hørning
>> >
>> > Tlf. +45 2962 7576
>> >
>> > Web: www.silverbullet.dk
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/interceptors---something-is-terrible-wrong-tp16661322s22882p16669908.html
>> Sent from the Camel - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
Posted by Jonathan Anstey <ja...@gmail.com>.
Yeah, I agree. Its more intuitive without the proceed()... I wonder if
there was a good reason for it being implemented in this way?
Hiram Chirino wrote:
> wouldn't most folks want to proceed() when intercepting? Should we
> not make that the default behavior without having to specify
> proceed()?
>
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Claus Ibsen <ci...@silverbullet.dk> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jonathan
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the patch. I thought about the proceed method as well but since it didn't work I assumed I was wrong as well. I couldn't imagine the "standard logging / kinda like AOP logging" feature was malfunction in Camel.
>>
>> I will get the patch in the SVN asap, and fix the wiki.
>>
>>
>> Med venlig hilsen
>>
>> Claus Ibsen
>> ......................................
>> Silverbullet
>> Skovsgårdsvænget 21
>> 8362 Hørning
>> Tlf. +45 2962 7576
>> Web: www.silverbullet.dk
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: janstey [mailto:janstey@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 14. april 2008 02:44
>> To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
>>
>>
>> Hey Claus,
>>
>> AFAIK you need to add a proceed() at the end of an intercept() route or, as
>> you described, it swallows the exchange. I found a little bug in the
>> proceed() method as well... but this patch should fix it up.
>> http://www.nabble.com/file/p16669908/intercept.patch intercept.patch
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jon
>>
>>
>> Claus Ibsen wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry for the title but I needed to get your attention.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On the wiki: http://activemq.apache.org/camel/dsl.html
>> >
>> > The interceptor sample is a good old logging sample that looks plausible
>> > and easy to understand. If you add intercept("log:mylogger") then Camel
>> > would log all the transitions.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > But the terrible part is that the logging example does not work as stated.
>> > In Camel if the interceptor kicks in it "swallows" the exchange and the
>> > exchange is not routed further.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have added a unit test to the came-core:
>> > org.apache.camel.issues.InterceptorLogTest that demonstrates the problem.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If you enable the intercept() codeline the unit test fails.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > What is the fundamental usage for interceptors in Camel?
>> >
>> > The use case from an end user was to log all the steps so he could get an
>> > idea how the exchanges was actually routed - a great feature in my mind.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have created a ticket CAMEL-442 to improve the documentation for
>> > interceptors. I think the interceptor concept should be on its own page,
>> > so its easier to find in the current documentation.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Med venlig hilsen
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Claus Ibsen
>> >
>> > ......................................
>> >
>> > Silverbullet
>> >
>> > Skovsgårdsvænget 21
>> >
>> > 8362 Hørning
>> >
>> > Tlf. +45 2962 7576
>> >
>> > Web: www.silverbullet.dk
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/interceptors---something-is-terrible-wrong-tp16661322s22882p16669908.html
>> Sent from the Camel - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
wouldn't most folks want to proceed() when intercepting? Should we
not make that the default behavior without having to specify
proceed()?
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Claus Ibsen <ci...@silverbullet.dk> wrote:
> Hi Jonathan
>
> Thanks a lot for the patch. I thought about the proceed method as well but since it didn't work I assumed I was wrong as well. I couldn't imagine the "standard logging / kinda like AOP logging" feature was malfunction in Camel.
>
> I will get the patch in the SVN asap, and fix the wiki.
>
>
> Med venlig hilsen
>
> Claus Ibsen
> ......................................
> Silverbullet
> Skovsgårdsvænget 21
> 8362 Hørning
> Tlf. +45 2962 7576
> Web: www.silverbullet.dk
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: janstey [mailto:janstey@gmail.com]
> Sent: 14. april 2008 02:44
> To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
>
>
> Hey Claus,
>
> AFAIK you need to add a proceed() at the end of an intercept() route or, as
> you described, it swallows the exchange. I found a little bug in the
> proceed() method as well... but this patch should fix it up.
> http://www.nabble.com/file/p16669908/intercept.patch intercept.patch
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>
> Claus Ibsen wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry for the title but I needed to get your attention.
> >
> >
> >
> > On the wiki: http://activemq.apache.org/camel/dsl.html
> >
> > The interceptor sample is a good old logging sample that looks plausible
> > and easy to understand. If you add intercept("log:mylogger") then Camel
> > would log all the transitions.
> >
> >
> >
> > But the terrible part is that the logging example does not work as stated.
> > In Camel if the interceptor kicks in it "swallows" the exchange and the
> > exchange is not routed further.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have added a unit test to the came-core:
> > org.apache.camel.issues.InterceptorLogTest that demonstrates the problem.
> >
> >
> >
> > If you enable the intercept() codeline the unit test fails.
> >
> >
> >
> > What is the fundamental usage for interceptors in Camel?
> >
> > The use case from an end user was to log all the steps so he could get an
> > idea how the exchanges was actually routed - a great feature in my mind.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have created a ticket CAMEL-442 to improve the documentation for
> > interceptors. I think the interceptor concept should be on its own page,
> > so its easier to find in the current documentation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Med venlig hilsen
> >
> >
> >
> > Claus Ibsen
> >
> > ......................................
> >
> > Silverbullet
> >
> > Skovsgårdsvænget 21
> >
> > 8362 Hørning
> >
> > Tlf. +45 2962 7576
> >
> > Web: www.silverbullet.dk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/interceptors---something-is-terrible-wrong-tp16661322s22882p16669908.html
> Sent from the Camel - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Open Source SOA
http://open.iona.com
RE: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
Posted by Claus Ibsen <ci...@silverbullet.dk>.
Hi Jonathan
Thanks a lot for the patch. I thought about the proceed method as well but since it didn't work I assumed I was wrong as well. I couldn't imagine the "standard logging / kinda like AOP logging" feature was malfunction in Camel.
I will get the patch in the SVN asap, and fix the wiki.
Med venlig hilsen
Claus Ibsen
......................................
Silverbullet
Skovsgårdsvænget 21
8362 Hørning
Tlf. +45 2962 7576
Web: www.silverbullet.dk
-----Original Message-----
From: janstey [mailto:janstey@gmail.com]
Sent: 14. april 2008 02:44
To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
Hey Claus,
AFAIK you need to add a proceed() at the end of an intercept() route or, as
you described, it swallows the exchange. I found a little bug in the
proceed() method as well... but this patch should fix it up.
http://www.nabble.com/file/p16669908/intercept.patch intercept.patch
Cheers,
Jon
Claus Ibsen wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> Sorry for the title but I needed to get your attention.
>
>
>
> On the wiki: http://activemq.apache.org/camel/dsl.html
>
> The interceptor sample is a good old logging sample that looks plausible
> and easy to understand. If you add intercept("log:mylogger") then Camel
> would log all the transitions.
>
>
>
> But the terrible part is that the logging example does not work as stated.
> In Camel if the interceptor kicks in it "swallows" the exchange and the
> exchange is not routed further.
>
>
>
> I have added a unit test to the came-core:
> org.apache.camel.issues.InterceptorLogTest that demonstrates the problem.
>
>
>
> If you enable the intercept() codeline the unit test fails.
>
>
>
> What is the fundamental usage for interceptors in Camel?
>
> The use case from an end user was to log all the steps so he could get an
> idea how the exchanges was actually routed - a great feature in my mind.
>
>
>
>
>
> I have created a ticket CAMEL-442 to improve the documentation for
> interceptors. I think the interceptor concept should be on its own page,
> so its easier to find in the current documentation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Med venlig hilsen
>
>
>
> Claus Ibsen
>
> ......................................
>
> Silverbullet
>
> Skovsgårdsvænget 21
>
> 8362 Hørning
>
> Tlf. +45 2962 7576
>
> Web: www.silverbullet.dk
>
>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/interceptors---something-is-terrible-wrong-tp16661322s22882p16669908.html
Sent from the Camel - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: interceptors - something is terrible wrong
Posted by janstey <ja...@gmail.com>.
Hey Claus,
AFAIK you need to add a proceed() at the end of an intercept() route or, as
you described, it swallows the exchange. I found a little bug in the
proceed() method as well... but this patch should fix it up.
http://www.nabble.com/file/p16669908/intercept.patch intercept.patch
Cheers,
Jon
Claus Ibsen wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> Sorry for the title but I needed to get your attention.
>
>
>
> On the wiki: http://activemq.apache.org/camel/dsl.html
>
> The interceptor sample is a good old logging sample that looks plausible
> and easy to understand. If you add intercept("log:mylogger") then Camel
> would log all the transitions.
>
>
>
> But the terrible part is that the logging example does not work as stated.
> In Camel if the interceptor kicks in it "swallows" the exchange and the
> exchange is not routed further.
>
>
>
> I have added a unit test to the came-core:
> org.apache.camel.issues.InterceptorLogTest that demonstrates the problem.
>
>
>
> If you enable the intercept() codeline the unit test fails.
>
>
>
> What is the fundamental usage for interceptors in Camel?
>
> The use case from an end user was to log all the steps so he could get an
> idea how the exchanges was actually routed - a great feature in my mind.
>
>
>
>
>
> I have created a ticket CAMEL-442 to improve the documentation for
> interceptors. I think the interceptor concept should be on its own page,
> so its easier to find in the current documentation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Med venlig hilsen
>
>
>
> Claus Ibsen
>
> ......................................
>
> Silverbullet
>
> Skovsgårdsvænget 21
>
> 8362 Hørning
>
> Tlf. +45 2962 7576
>
> Web: www.silverbullet.dk
>
>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/interceptors---something-is-terrible-wrong-tp16661322s22882p16669908.html
Sent from the Camel - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.