: Components setting data on OUT
2009/1/27 Andi Abes aa...@progress.com:
Having finally caught up with the discussion about header/property
copying and propagation, I thought it might be interesting to circle
back to the original question Claus posed (slightly reworded) - what
is
the purpose
Message-
From: Andi Abes [mailto:aa...@progress.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 2:17 PM
To: dev@camel.apache.org
Subject: RE: Components setting data on OUT
Took a while, and Roman I think you made great points.
I think that throughout that thread there seems to have been a bit
primordial input message, as provided by the user.
(start the flame...)
-Original Message-
From: Claus Ibsen [mailto:claus.ib...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:23 AM
To: dev@camel.apache.org
Subject: Re: Components setting data on OUT
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:02 AM, William
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 9:08 PM, William Tam email.w...@gmail.com wrote:
What we have stored in Headers today in Camel is both:
- user headers
- and system headers (added by Camel itself).
I am starting to be more and more convinced that we should separate the two.
So any headers that a
Hi,
This headers business is a bit of a tricky one. I hit it last year in
the context of security.
I agree with the view that headers should only exist in the context of
an endpoint. I think outside of that there is no guarantee that the
semantics of a header is preserved. I am not
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
This headers business is a bit of a tricky one. I hit it last year in the
context of security.
I agree with the view that headers should only exist in the context of an
endpoint. I think outside of that there
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Roman Kalukiewicz
roman.kalukiew...@gmail.com wrote:
Why don't we talk about exchange properties here? My feeling here is
that properties should be used as user-headers, while headers are
always protocol headers. In fact it works this way right now: If I
want
I am personall against the added map idea. I think the separation is
based on headers that need to be propagated (properties) vs headers
that don't. It would we the endpoint+policy responsibility to decide
what gets propagated. All other distinctions can be made based for
instance on
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 26, 2009, at 4:17 PM, William Tam wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't disagree, I was just suggesting that they should then travel as
properties.
Why
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea hzbar...@gmail.com wrote:
I think having dots ('.') in property names is not a good idea as they don't
get along iirc with some technologies.
Sorry one more thing, the property name is just key to exchange
property map. I believe we already
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Claus Ibsen claus.ib...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
The OUT message really starts to irritate me.
We have various components that set data on the OUT body and then the
Pipeline will use this result as IN for then next node.
What happens is then whatever headers etc
11 matches
Mail list logo
