On 10/8/07, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/7/07, William Tam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > BTW, I think if the callback passes me the processed exchange, there
> > > > would be super nice. I probably care more about out message (if any)
> > > > than whether it has been done synchronously or not.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Since the caller of the asyc process call passes in the exchange, he
> > > can pass that same exchange to the call back via either injection or
> > > via final local reference. Something like:
> > >
> > > final Exchange exch = ...
> > > processor.process(exch, new AsyncCallback() {
> > > public void done(boolean sync) {
> > > System.out.println( exch.getOut() );
> > > }
> > > });
> > >
> >
> > Actually, this technique does not work for any component producer that
> > makes a copy of the exchange. For example, the seda producer makes a
> > copy of an exchange and endqueue the copy.
> >
> > public boolean process(Exchange exchange, AsyncCallback callback) {
> > queue.add(exchange.copy());
> > callback.done(true);
> > return true;
> > }
> >
> > Then, the seda consumer thread could update (in, out, fault) messages
> > in the copied exchange but any update can not be seen in the orginal
> > exchange (as in your example).
> >
>
> That's the point. The copy is considered a brand new exchange that
> has nothing to do with the original. This is another reason that I
> don't want to pass the exchange to the done() method. Right now it's
> simple and understood that when done() gets called the exchange that
> was passed to process was the one that was completed. If we allowed
> the exchange to be passed a parameter to done then it would be
> possible to create an error condition by passing the wrong exchange to
> the done method. Having implemented several async processors, just
> keeping track the sync parameter is task on it own.
>
Suppose I call async send and just want to handle the out message in
the exchange the processing is done. As the sender, why do I have to
worry about whether the endpoint implementation creates a copy of the
exchange or not? I don't see it can be a good thing if the code
snippet you've given above works for some endpoints but not all
endpoints.
>Right now it's
> simple and understood that when done() gets called the exchange that
> was passed to process was the one that was completed.
We might have some misunderstanding. The exchange that was completed
was the copy and NOT the original, right?
