Hi Christian,
No, I don't think you can simple replace camel-cxf component with the
camel transport for CXF.
camel-cxf component uses the camel component way to integrate the CXF
with camel, and camel transport is using CXF transport API to integrate
the camel with CXF. You can use the camel transport and camel-cxf
together as they integrate the camel and CXF in different level.
cxfbean and the camel transport are more likely used in the server side.
If you want to access the WebService by using the proxy way, you still
need to use the camel-cxf component.
If you want to build a WebService proxy, camel-cxf component can help
you, you can easily do the CBR with help of camel-cxf component.
On 6/15/11 9:31 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
Hi all,
currently we have several ways of using / offering a CXF service with
camel:
- Camel transport for CXF
- cxf: component
- cxfbean: component
- cxfrs: component
The camel transport is useful as it is a very thin layer compared to the
other variants. Additionally it allows to reuse experience from cxf on
how to setup an endpoint.
The cxfbean: component is quite convenient so it makes sense to have it.
The cxfrs: component also seems to be quit econvenient for users.
The cxf: component is very verbose and seems to be used almost exactly
as the original cxf way to describe a service. So I propose to remove
this component. As a migration path I propose users use either the camel
transport for cxf or the cxfbean component.
What do you think?
Christian
--
Willem
----------------------------------
FuseSource
Web: http://www.fusesource.com
Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English)
http://jnn.javaeye.com (Chinese)
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo: willemjiang
