I'm not sure on point 3 either and the tests didn't appear that way. If you look at the Unit test I posted earlier on that thread or even copy/paste it into a test class and run it you'll notice that the sub-route invocation behavior changes depending on whether the initial invocation of the very first endpoint is fire and forget or request/reply. On a request/reply (requestBody) the sub-route even with SEDA is invoked before the parent route completes. So the mutation of the value there appears in the final log statement of the parent route. On a fire and forget (sendBody) then the parent route will complete with the same value you sent in and you'll see it log that very same value. Then the sub-route executes.
The exchange Id changes when going from one route to another but I don't think that implies a deep clone and I'd have to check it. So essentially when you pass the Exchange to the sub-route, you are passing a big hashmap with headers, properties and an In Message and a null Out Message. So when you change the value of the body in the sub-route in a request/reply you'll see it show up in the final log statement of the parent route. Since I almost never uses Processors or directly manipulate Exchanges there are likely a number of folks who can chime in and give you a better explanation. On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:22 AM, sim085 <sim...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Just want to highlight that I have my reservations on point 3. > > From what I can see the ExchangePattern parameter doesn't determine > anything. The same applies for calling something using inOut or inOnly. > > Again from what I can see from the examples I have tried out, what > determines if the parent route will wait or not for the sub-route to > complete, or if the message used by the parent is the IN passed to the > sub-route or the OUT of the sub-route ALL DEPENDS on if the sub-route, i.e. > - if the sub route care less about the Exchange Pattern with which it has > been called or not. > > I do not know if anyone can share an example where this is not so? > > > DariusX wrote > > 3. The MEP used for the "sub-route" determines whether the "parent" route > > will wait for the "sub-route" and use the out-message of that sub-route > as > > the in-message to its next step. > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble. > com/Can-t-understand-what-inOnly-is-doing-tp5787961p5788103.html > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
