-
1. Re: Switchyard metadata in Camel mediations
dward Jun 13, 2012 11:52 AM (in response to splatch)I'm fine with adding properties, but the names of the context properties (stop thinking "headers") might need some discussion.
Specifically, I think it's time we came up with a convention for SwitchYard property names. Below is a list of options. The first two are already in place (and I don't like it), and yours would add a third:
- Prefixed with "org.switchyard." We do this with messageId (and correlationId I believe). Maybe other things.
- Use QName with a switchayrd namespace, for example: "{urn:switchyard-component-bpm:process:1.0}processInstanceId". We do this in our rules, bpm and bpel components.
- Prefix with "SwitchYard" (as you suggest).
Please let's decide upon ONE form? Even though I admit to adding option #2, I prefer option #1 since it's simpler than option #2, and would volunteer to go back and change it. And, even though option #3 is a lot like Camel does it, I still prefer option #1 since the "package notation" gives us more options for granularity/groupings of properties. For example, a property prefixed with org.switchyard.component.bpm is clearly a bpm-related proeprty, and then in context mappers we can easlity write our includes based off of it.
-
2. Re: Switchyard metadata in Camel mediations
splatch Jun 13, 2012 12:20 PM (in response to dward)I think that #1, the package notation will be ok - org.switchyard.component.camel. I proposed a #3 form to be close to Camel, and have shorter conditions. The #2 is way to complex for simple values. I am with you to operate using #1 as camel have lots of problems with number of headers (in SwitchYard terminology context properties) and management of them.