I do think we agree ;)
The only thing i meant, was that this new component should focus on:
* messaging style (asynchronous)
* xml payload
* closer to jbi
whereas jsr181 is good for web service stuff (completely hiding jbi,
doing xml/java marshalling, rpc, etc..).
Stating that provides imho a clear difference between the two components.
On 8/21/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Guillaume,
I agree that we need to define the difference between components more
clearly - I suppose in my mind the JBI component under discussion here
is basically a mechanism when you are focussing on XML messaging in a
format that can not be changed or where you want to interact with the
JBI message bus to provide either InOnly reciept of messages or to
build a consumer that will run through a provided WorkManager.
The JSR181 components to be have always had explicit business
interfaces and work more akin to Web Services or EJB's then MDB's
(sorry for the switching back to the old days). I was hoping that
people building "integration" service units would simply want to be
playing with payloads or mapping in some specific bits of information
from an XML document (people who would be familiar familiar with XPath
and DOM say) and would want to act on that information and reply with
a Document or create an exchange to another service. While I suppose
IMHO the JSR181 is more for people wishing to expose Business Services
to the bus, and would be used by people designing application
endpoints - which would be defining the payload of the messages not
simply being given the payload?
The different would be in the purposing and flexibilty of the POJO's -
the JBI would be quick (and maybe a little dirty) which it could work
on any payload of message etc and could interact with a InOut
exchange, get the property from the exchange, update the Fault and
Error etc. While the JSR181 would be a way to expose business
services to the bus (whereby your focus is on WSDL, and structured
data).
I realize you can do any payload in JSR181 but I'm wondering whether
that is simply pushing the JSR181 container into doing more than it is
best suited?
P
On 8/21/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I fully agree to simplify the annotations used,
> if you begin to map parameters to properties or xml content,
> you end up to jsr181 component.
>
> I have already planned to add annotations a la jaxws to allow
> properties to be mapped to parameters in jsr181. A kind of
> JBI annotations set for jaxws (compared to the existing SOAP annotations).
> But if we begin to handle xml mapping here, we would end
> with 2 components with little differences.
>
> For example, the
> @ExchangeProcessor
> public SomeResponse doSomething(@MessageBody SomeRequest foo) { ... }
>
> could be further simplified to
>
> @WebMethod
> public SomeResponse doSomething(@WebParam SomeRequest foo) { ... }
>
> which is exactly what the jsr181 component do ;)
>
> Note that the jsr181 component should already by able to
> handle Source types as a parameter (which would map to
> the full payload), and we should be able to add a MessageExchange
> parameter which would receive the exchange without disturbing
> other parameters (xfire already does that for xfire specific
> classes, such as the context).
>
> We need to clearly agree on what we want to show and hide from
> the jbi spec in this component. I don't think we need another SE
> that do xml marshalling (we'd better enhance the existing one).
>
> The main things to define imho are:
> * how to return the answer if using an InOut
> * when the pojo acts as a consumer, how will it receive the answer
> from an InOut exchange it has previsouly sent
>
> I really think there is something to do with beanflow.
> I will try to think about that a bit more.
>
> On 8/21/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just a bit of brainstorming of ideas here.
> >
> > I was looking at this example
> >
> > @ExchangeProcessor(patterns = { MessageExchangePattern.INOUT },
> > parameterMappings = { ParameterMapping.IN_MESSAGE_CONTENT })
> > public void myInOutProcessor(MessageExchange me) {
> > // Do something here
> > }
> >
> > @ExchangeProcessor(patterns = { MessageExchangePattern.INONLY,
> > MessageExchangePattern.ROBUSTINOULY },
parameterMappings = {
> > ParameterMapping.IN_MESSAGE_CONTENT })
> > public void myInOnlyProcessor(Source payload) {
> > // Do something here
> > }
> >
> > and wondering how to simplify a little.
> >
> > My first thought was to use an annotation for each kind of exchange to
> > be supported...
> >
> > @InOnlyExchange @RobustInOnlyExchange
> > public void foo(MessageExchange exchange) {
> > }
> >
> > (I realised we'd get class name clashes so added the 'Exchange'
> > postfix to the annotation names. Then I figured it might be simpler to
> > just use a typesafe API...
> >
> > @ExchangeProcessor
> > public void foo(InOnly exchange) {
> > }
> >
> > @ExchangeProcessor
> > public void bar(RobustInOnly exchange) {
> > }
> >
> > I guess sometimes folks might not want to see/use the exchange or
> > might wish to support multiple patterns for one method so some kinda
> > annotation to indicate the exchange pattern is still useful.
> >
> >
> > Also how about annotating parameters as being bound to the exchange...
> >
> > @ExchangeProcessor
> > public void foo(@MessageProperty('cheese') String foo,
> > @ExchangeProperty("beer") Integer bar, @MessageContent Source payload)
> > {
> > }
> >
> > While the @MessageContent may at first not appear that useful, we
> > could allow some automatic tranformations from common types to message
> > contents such as DOM or JAXB marshalling etc
> >
> > e.g.
> >
> > @ExchangeProcessor
> > public SomeResponse doSomething(@MessageBody SomeRequest foo) { ... }
> >
> > where SomeRequest and SomeResponse could be marshalled to/from Source via
JAXB2.
> >
> > This would allow folks to process exchanges without using any of the
> > JBI APIs if they wish - or inject a MessageExchange or
> > NormalizedMessage into a parameter if required.
> >
> >
> > On 8/21/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Great stuff Philip!
> > >
> > > More feedback as I start digesting this fully and reading this whole
> > > thread but my first reaction is could we try to stick to standard
> > > annotations where possible - such as those defined in JSR 250? e.g.
> > >
> > >
http://geronimo.apache.org/xbean/annotation-based-dependency-injection.html
> > >
> > > so
> > >
> > > @ServiceStartup -> @PostConstruct
> > >
> > > @ServiceShutdown -> @PreDestroy
> > >
> > > am also wondering how many of the other annotations are really
> > > required on injected fields - could we just use @Resource to indicate
> > > stuff that is mandatory to be dependency injected (like EJB3s). I'm
> > > sure some of the annotations are required though; am just wondering
> > > how many of them are
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/18/06, Philip Dodds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I have knocked up some thoughts on a JBI POJO engine that could be
> > > > used to provide a mechanism for annotating POJO specifically for more
> > > > messaging level operations that the JSR181 service engine is aimed
> > > > for.
> > > >
> > > > The idea is to provide a simple framework to replace the Spring Client
> > > > Toolkit that is now defunt.
> > > >
> > > > Have a look at the idea -
> > > > http://goopen.org/confluence/display/SM/JBI+Pojo+Service+Engine
> > > >
> > > > And all comments/thoughts are welcome!!
> > > >
> > > > P
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > James
> > > -------
> > > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > James
> > -------
> > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
> >
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
