On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Daniel Bevenius <daniel.beven...@gmail.com> wrote: >>We have added information about this in Camel in action, >> chapter 3 when we drill down and work the Processor which exposes the >> Exchange API. > I just took a look but could not find such information in chapter 3. But > perhaps this version of the book has yet to be released? >
Yeah the chapters are in copy editing and a new MEAP will be released when all this work is done. > Thanks, > > /Daniel > > 2010/9/24 Bengt Rodehav <be...@rodehav.com> > >> Perfect! >> >> /Bengt >> >> 2010/9/24 Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Bengt Rodehav <be...@rodehav.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> Yeah I remember reading about the problems with losing message headers >> > >> somewhere on this list... >> > >> >> > >> To be perfectly honest I think that the number of mails on this thread >> > >> indicates the importance of documenting these rules and how things >> work. >> > >> Claus, you are most definitely the man to do it. I've got your book >> > (haven't >> > >> read the last updates though) and it certainly warrants a place there. >> > >> Perhaps it should also be on the wiki somewhere. >> > >> >> > > >> > > We have added information about this in Camel in action, >> > > chapter 3 when we drill down and work the Processor which exposes the >> > > Exchange API. >> > > >> > >> > I also added a couple of FAQs as well, such as >> > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAMEL/Using+getIn+or+getOut+methods+on+Exchange >> > >> > > >> > >> /Bengt >> > >> >> > >> 2010/9/14 Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> >> > >> >> > >>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Bengt Rodehav <be...@rodehav.com> >> > wrote: >> > >>> > I think that was very useful information. I hadn't thought of a >> > Processor >> > >>> as >> > >>> > very low level - it's definitely a level that a lot of us will use. >> > Then >> > >>> I >> > >>> > guess that in some circumstances (like when coding a custom >> > processor) >> > >>> you >> > >>> > need to set the out messsage if the MEP is "out capable" otherwise >> > you >> > >>> just >> > >>> > set the in message. Are there more situations where this is needed? >> > >>> > >> > >>> >> > >>> If the MEP is out capable you can still just change the IN message. >> > >>> If the OUT is null, then Camel will re-use the IN (which you just >> > >>> changed) and thus still route whatever you have changed. >> > >>> >> > >>> You only need to use OUT if you want to create a totally 100% new >> > >>> message which is not related to the IN message at all. >> > >>> And this is only needed in special cases. >> > >>> >> > >>> Otherwise you get the problem with: Why do I lose my message headers >> > etc. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > I think that this subject is definitely complicated enough to >> warrant >> > a >> > >>> good >> > >>> > documentation somewhere. I think it's really important for >> developers >> > to >> > >>> > understand core concepts instead of just using boilerplate samples >> > >>> (although >> > >>> > they are very useful). >> > >>> > >> > >>> > /Bengt >> > >>> > >> > >>> > 2010/9/14 Claus Ibsen <claus.ib...@gmail.com> >> > >>> > >> > >>> >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Christian Müller >> > >>> >> <christian.muel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >>> >> > Hello Claus! >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > That's not (in my opinion) how it works currently. At present I >> > work >> > >>> on a >> > >>> >> > route which looks like this: >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > errorHandler( >> > >>> >> > defaultErrorHandler() >> > >>> >> > .retryAttemptedLogLevel(LoggingLevel.DEBUG) >> > >>> >> > .retriesExhaustedLogLevel(LoggingLevel.INFO)); >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > onException(IllegalArgumentException.class) >> > >>> >> > .handled(true) >> > >>> >> > .maximumRedeliveries(0) >> > >>> >> > .beanRef("myResultProvider", "failureResponse"); >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > from("cxf:bean:MyCoolService") >> > >>> >> > .processRef("myValidator") // validates conditional rules >> > >>> >> > .inOut("direct:mySubroute") >> > >>> >> > .beanRef("myResultProvider", "successResponse") >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > If my validator throws a IllegalArgumentException and the result >> > >>> provider >> > >>> >> > writes the response into the in message, the web service will >> > return >> > >>> >> null. >> > >>> >> > But if I write the response into the out message, the web >> service >> > will >> > >>> >> > return it. So, I changes my bean to the following "pattern": >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> Well that could CXF Bean component having a bug. >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> If you decide to use a Processor and work on Exchange then you use >> > the >> > >>> >> low level Camel API and then you have to handle the IN/OUT stuff >> > >>> >> yourself. >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > if (exchange.getPattern().isOutCapable()) { >> > >>> >> > exchange.getOut().setBody(response); >> > >>> >> > } else { >> > >>> >> > exchange.getIn().setBody(response); >> > >>> >> > } >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > And that's the same how the >> > >>> >> org.apache.camel.processor.ConvertBodyProcessor >> > >>> >> > works (I know you know this, but for the other guys.. :o) ) >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > public class ConvertBodyProcessor implements Processor { >> > >>> >> > ... >> > >>> >> > public void process(Exchange exchange) throws Exception { >> > >>> >> > Message in = exchange.getIn(); >> > >>> >> > if (charset != null) { >> > >>> >> > exchange.setProperty(Exchange.CHARSET_NAME, charset); >> > >>> >> > } >> > >>> >> > Object value = in.getMandatoryBody(type); >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > if (exchange.getPattern().isOutCapable()) { >> > >>> >> > Message out = exchange.getOut(); >> > >>> >> > out.copyFrom(in); >> > >>> >> > out.setBody(value); >> > >>> >> > } else { >> > >>> >> > in.setBody(value); >> > >>> >> > } >> > >>> >> > } >> > >>> >> > ... >> > >>> >> > } >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > Should our custom processors/beans/.. not work in the same way? >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > Cheers, >> > >>> >> > Christian >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> -- >> > >>> >> Claus Ibsen >> > >>> >> Apache Camel Committer >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/ >> > >>> >> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com >> > >>> >> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ >> > >>> >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus >> > >>> >> >> > >>> > >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> -- >> > >>> Claus Ibsen >> > >>> Apache Camel Committer >> > >>> >> > >>> Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/ >> > >>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com >> > >>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ >> > >>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus >> > >>> >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Claus Ibsen >> > > Apache Camel Committer >> > > >> > > Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/ >> > > Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com >> > > Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ >> > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Claus Ibsen >> > Apache Camel Committer >> > >> > Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/ >> > Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com >> > Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ >> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus >> > >> > -- Claus Ibsen Apache Camel Committer Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/ Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
