2009/7/9 Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com>:
> I think the names should be
>
> boolean isFault()
> void setFault()
>
> Yeah I do not think people should call setFault(false)
> or later want to change an existing OUT message from fault to out or vice
> versa.
>
> But is it confusing with a setter that dont accept parameters, does it
> violate the bean spec?
I would propose to leave setFault(boolean) anyway. Does it hurt anyone
if we give more freedom to our users? I can easily imagine situation
when I call CXF endpoint, receive a fault and then want to simply send
it to JMS queue whatever the response was. Then I just clear the fault
flag and I'm done.
Another thing is how faults (if they exist) should be handled. I
believe we should have our error handling extended so we can write
something like:
.doTry()
.to("cxf:bean:faultThrowingService")
.doCatch(body().instanceOf(MyFault.class))
...
.end()
It can handle faults almost like exceptions but it has more
flexibility (but it is core API discussion anymore).
Roman
