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
