Hi, I took a look at your requirement and do not quite get why the need for ExchangePattern.InOptionalOut. A standard In-Out can solve this requirement just as easily.
If your requirement needs you to send a transformed message to a different destination along the way while processing the original message and returning a response to the sender, why not use a "wiretap" in the secondary route which is designed to do exactly that... The wiretap forks the message and sends a copy to a different destination. If this copy needs to be transformed, a little sub-route could do exactly that before sending it off to the destination. The original or a transformed message can be sent back as a response to the client by the original route. The ExchangePattern.InOptionalOut is a "message exchange" pattern/understanging between the route-invoking client and the route consumer (aka server). It requires the clients to be aware of this pattern running on the server and expect/not expect responses from the server correctly. I cannot see how this pattern solves your requirement to fork the message to different endpoint while sending back a response to the client. Hope this helps. Cheers, Ashwin... ----- --------------------------------------------------------- Ashwin Karpe Apache Camel Committer & Sr Principal Consultant FUSESource (a Progress Software Corporation subsidiary) http://fusesource.com Blog: http://opensourceknowledge.blogspot.com CamelOne 2011: http://fusesource.com/camel2011 --------------------------------------------------------- -- View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/MEP-InOptionalOut-correct-behavior-for-exchange-bodies-tp4431556p4441902.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
