Claus,
Your are right. I can write my code like this :
class BeanProduct {
public void process(@Headers Map<String, Object> headers, @Body String
body, Exchange in) {
}
}
So the annotation is not at all required
You are a chief ;)
Regards,
Charles
Claus Ibsen wrote:
>
> Hi Charles
>
> I have not tested my self. Going to lunch now.
>
> However I do think you can do as #1 but without implementing the
> interface. Just add the Exchange Exchange as the parameter anyway.
>
> If not then I do think Camel should be able to do it anyway.
>
> The annotations are used to distinguish your parameters and to let Camel
> know where it should inject the payload etc using the @Body annotation. A
> parameter of type org.apache.came.Exchange does not need to be decorated
> with an Annotation as Camel should be able to pick up on this and just
> pass the exchange directly as it's a 100% type match.
>
> But you are welcome to drill down a small sample on this I can use as
> baseline for a unit test. And if something is missing we can improve camel
> in this regard.
>
>
>
> Med venlig hilsen
>
> Claus Ibsen
> ......................................
> Silverbullet
> Skovsgårdsvænget 21
> 8362 Hørning
> Tlf. +45 2962 7576
> Web: www.silverbullet.dk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cmoulliard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 10. juli 2008 12:27
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Annotation @Exchange planned in a future release ?
>
>
> Claus,
>
> The way that we implement the class is not the same when you compare both
> approaches
>
> 1) Without annotation
>
> The bean implements the interface Processor and retrieves the Exchange
> object through the method : process(Exchange ex)
>
> 2) Using annotation
>
> the bean does not implement the processor so it is not possible to
> retrieve
> the Exchange except if we inject it through additional annotation
>
> Regards
>
> Charles
>
>
>
> Claus Ibsen wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I think you can do like this
>>
>> public Exchange doSomething(Exchange exchange) {
>> ...
>> return exchange;
>> }
>>
>> So the @Exchange annotation is not really neeed IMHO. As its not a common
>> class such as java.lang.String etc.
>>
>> And I also think you can do return a String etc. instead of Exchange for
>> just the playload in the message. But I am not 100% sure.
>>
>>
>> Med venlig hilsen
>>
>> Claus Ibsen
>> ......................................
>> Silverbullet
>> Skovsgårdsvænget 21
>> 8362 Hørning
>> Tlf. +45 2962 7576
>> Web: www.silverbullet.dk
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cmoulliard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: 10. juli 2008 11:34
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Annotation @Exchange planned in a future release ?
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is it planned in a future release of Camel to also have the annotation
>> @Exchange available inside the bean component ?
>>
>> I ask you that question because when you want inside a bean to perform by
>> example a in.getOut().setHeader("", ""), you need to have access to the
>> Exchange object. The annotation allow to receive the @Properties,
>> @Headers
>> and @Body but no the exchange.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Charles
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Annotation-%40Exchange-planned-in-a-future-release---tp18379161s22882p18379161.html
>> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Annotation-%40Exchange-planned-in-a-future-release---tp18379161s22882p18379983.html
> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Annotation-%40Exchange-planned-in-a-future-release---tp18379161s22882p18382929.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
