On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Frank Schwarz wrote:
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> thank you for the pointers.
>
> I did indeed have a look these pages, and I think there can be enhanced as
> well.
>
> If a beginner looks at this line:
> from("seda:aggregate").aggregate(new
> MyOrderAggregationStrategy()).head
Hi Jon,
thank you for the pointers.
I did indeed have a look these pages, and I think there can be enhanced as
well.
If a beginner looks at this line:
from("seda:aggregate").aggregate(new
MyOrderAggregationStrategy()).header("orderId").to("mock:result");
it is nowhere clear, what the header("o
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Roman Kalukiewicz
wrote:
> 2009/4/18 Claus Ibsen :
>> We could add boolean hasOut() as a method on the Exchange.
>> Then you can test whether an OUT has been set or not.
>>
>> even though getOut(false) does exactly that. Returning null if no OUT exists.
>
> This is
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Roman Kalukiewicz
wrote:
> Hello Claus,
>
> You asked for thoughts, so here they are ;)
Great the more the better. This is now you have the chance to
influence the API before 2.0 is settled.
So please reply with any thoughts you have.
The producertemplate is very u
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Frank Schwarz wrote:
>
> For the record: I switched to Camel 2.0 M1 which provides this feature.
Hi
Yeah you beat me to it this morning. I had your mail starred.
Are you using 2.0M1 or 2.0-SNAPSHOT?
1)
In the latter we recently reworked the error handling. The
FYI there are some docs on the composed message processor here
http://camel.apache.org/composed-message-processor.html
as well as a unit test here
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/camel/trunk/camel-core/src/test/java/org/apache/camel/processor/ComposedMessageProcessorTest.java
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009
Hi Roman,
thank you for the clarification.
For the record, I realized the splitting this way, using the message-id from
the original message as the aggregation-correlation-id:
id
...
However, I think the documentation is incomplete and somewhat misleading at
this point and should
Hi,
I've got one more question about the reading of the documentation:
Aggregator (http://camel.apache.org/aggregator.html) has a attribute
"batchTimeout":
batchTimeout: Timeout in millis. How long should the aggregator wait before
its completed and sends whatever it has currently aggregated.
2009/4/19 Frank Schwarz :
>
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to realize a composed message processor - without luck so far.
>
> The messages get perfectly split, but I am not sure, how to realize the
> aggregation later on.
>
> Is there any built-in correlation criteria for the aggregation?
>
> The documentat
For the record: I switched to Camel 2.0 M1 which provides this feature.
-- Frank
Frank Schwarz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> is there a way to let Camel consume poisoned (unprocessable) messages? I
> haven't had any luck so far.
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Processing
Hi,
I am trying to realize a composed message processor - without luck so far.
The messages get perfectly split, but I am not sure, how to realize the
aggregation later on.
Is there any built-in correlation criteria for the aggregation?
The documentation (http://camel.apache.org/splitter.html
2009/4/18 Claus Ibsen :
> We could add boolean hasOut() as a method on the Exchange.
> Then you can test whether an OUT has been set or not.
>
> even though getOut(false) does exactly that. Returning null if no OUT exists.
This is not my point, that there is no clear way of verifying if there
is o
Hello Claus,
You asked for thoughts, so here they are ;)
What about totally different approach, that would be a pattern
parameter instead of a method name. Especially that those methods
differ only in pattern set on the exchange.
In fact I believe the best approach would be to have sendMessage()
Hi
Actually I think the naming convention should be:
send = for in only
sendWithHeader
sendWithHeaders
sendAndReceive = for in out
sendAndReceiveWithHeader
sendAndReceiveWithHeaders
Its more intuitive than currently
send = for in only
request = for in out
However what about the "body" method
14 matches
Mail list logo
