Camel Schemes: Concatenated vs '-' delineated convention

[gliesian <ro...@gliesian.com>]

Shouldn't Camel define a naming convention approach for it's URI schemes?

This is what I noticed:

# Concatenated
controlbus:
cxfrs:
elasticsearch:
eventadmin:
paxlogging:
routebox:
xmlsecurity:

# '-' delineated 
bean-validator:
disruptor-vm:
netty-http:
quickfix-client:
quickfix-server:
sap-netweaver:
spring-batch:
spring-ldap:
spring-integration:
spring-redis:
string-template:
spring-ws:
* spring-neo4j

# mix
guava-eventbus

I realize this would be a significant change to make (for the users)...
but I thought that I'd at least point it out.

Btw, I think rather than cxf, cxf and cxfrs... it should be cxf, cxf-ws and
cxf-rs.

Note: I took a peek here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme... and it 
seems like there is a mix between no delineator, a dash and a period.

However, I personally recommend taking a leap of faith and change the scheme
names for consistency...
the streamlining would make it easier on the developers knowing that a
certain convention is followed.

-- Robert



--
View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Camel-Schemes-Concatenated-vs-delineated-convention-tp5738892.html
Sent from the Camel Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.