On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Willem Jiang<willem.ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's because other components in Camel 2.0 will use the Exchange.HTTP_URI
> and Exchange.HTTP_PATH to do some work.
>
> Maybe we can add an option in http endpoint to ignore these two headers if
> you still want to use the HTTP bridge as Camel 1.x.
>
Yeah it could make sense to have a boolean option that will force it
to only use the static URI defined on the endpoint.
As messages could come from many different sources that are HTTP based
and thus would have a "dynamic" URI header.
> Willem
> _Jens wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> in Camel 1.x you could write a simple HTTP bridge like this:
>>
>> CamelContext camelContext = new DefaultCamelContext();
>> camelContext.addRoutes(new RouteBuilder() {
>> �...@override
>> public void configure() throws Exception {
>>
>> from("jetty:http://localhost:8435/path1";).to("http://localhost:8435/path2";);
>>
>> from("jetty:http://localhost:8435/path2";).transform().constant("OK");
>> }
>> });
>> camelContext.start();
>> ProducerTemplate producerTemplate =
>> camelContext.createProducerTemplate();
>> InputStream result = (InputStream)
>> producerTemplate.requestBody("http://localhost:8435/path1";, "Hello");
>> assertEquals("OK", IOUtils.toString(result));
>>
>> in Camel 2.0 this doesn't work anymore because the Exchange.HTTP_URI and
>> Exchange.HTTP_PATH are set by the consumer that received the initial
>> request. The HttpProducer that is called because of the to() then "thinks"
>> those header properties were set to define the actual destination and
>> sends
>> the data to "/path1/path1", which leads to an error. You have to
>> explicitly
>> remove those properties from the exchange to make it work:
>>
>> from("jetty:http://localhost:8435/path1";)
>> .removeHeader(Exchange.HTTP_URI)
>> .removeHeader(Exchange.HTTP_PATH)
>> .to("http://localhost:8435/path2";);
>>
>> I can't think of any use for this behavior and it is rather surprising.
>> However, I understand that it might be a side effect that we have to live
>> with because the header property names are now shared between the
>> endpoints.
>> Anyway, is this the way it is supposed to work now or is it worth to
>> submit
>> a bug report for this? Are there any other properties that should be
>> removed
>> to ensure that the to() really sends it to the destination it is supposed
>> to?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jens
>
>
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
