Hi Just catching up with some mails. I am +1 on this, and having full backwards compatibility on the Camel 2.x versions is really good.
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > > We discussed a while ago how the Camel CXF component's modes don't really > "match" what CXF can provide. It currently has two modes: > > 1) Message mode - it provides the full message kind of as a stream. > However, it specifically DISABLES much of the CXF processing of the message. > > 2) Payload - allows CXF to process it, but only provides the body. > > > However, in CXF, "Message Mode" really means access to the whole message, > but also processed and verified by CXF. Thus, there is a mismatch between > the two semantics of Message mode. There is also no easy way in Camel to > have the equivalent of the CXF Message mode. > > What I'd LIKE to do is: > > 1) Introduce a new "RAW" mode which is the current Message mode. Likely > for now, the two would just be aliases of each other, but I'd prefer to > promote usage of the new RAW mode name to keep it clear that it's not the > same as the CXF message mode. > > 2) Introduce a new mode that would mimic the CXF Message mode. Just not > sure what to call it. PROCESSED_MESSAGE? Thoughts? > > For Camel 3.0, I think I'd change MESSAGE to map to the new > PROCESSED_MESSAGE to keep semantics similar. Not something to do now > though. > > Thoughts? > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com > -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- CamelOne 2012 Conference, May 15-16, 2012: http://camelone.com FuseSource Email: cib...@fusesource.com Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: davsclaus, fusenews Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
