camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William Tam <email.w...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Components setting data on OUT
Date Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:38 GMT
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This headers business is a bit of a tricky one.  I hit it last year in the
> context of security.
>
> I agree with the view that headers should only exist in the context of an
> endpoint.  I think outside of that there is no guarantee that the semantics
> of a header is preserved.  I am not sure if headers should be propagated
> from one endpoint to another at all.

There are certainly use cases that protocol headers DO need to be
propagated between endpoints.  If users want to integrate with some
management and/or security tools like Actional, users are required to
include custom headers in protocol headers.  These custom headers
travel with messages to allow trust zone enforcement and message
correlation.  They need to be preserved and propagated across hops
which are potentially over different transport protocols.

> Properties should be used instead.
> Coming back to security, if http is used for instance there are several ways
> of handling that.  If basic auth is used for instance one gets a user/pass,
> but that may need to be translated to something else at endpoint boundaries.
>  I don't think that the "Authorization" header should exist outside the http
> endpoint for instance.
>
> Yes, we do propagate properties today, no issue there.  But then some
> policies need to be defined per endpoint to deal with known
> headers/properties, and camel specific properties should be defined to deal
> with know headers.  Even better, endpoints should set protocol specific
> headers that are known as required to propagate (such as the auth stuff) as
> properties from start.
>
> My $0.02
> Hadrian
>
>
> On Jan 26, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Claus Ibsen wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Roman Kalukiewicz
>> <roman.kalukiewicz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why don't we talk about exchange properties here? My feeling here is
>>> that properties should be used as user-headers, while headers are
>>> always protocol headers. In fact it works this way right now: If I
>>> want to keep some value through the whole flow I put it into
>>> properties.
>>>
>>> By current convention if I put something on a header it is sent as
>>> protocol-specific header (JMS property, HTTP header), and out headers
>>> are filled also with protocol headers (JSM properties of out emssage,
>>> HTTP response headers). In this case headers shouldn't be propagated,
>>> as there is no way to distinguish things propagated, from things
>>> retrieved. And out headers ARE different than in headers.
>>>
>>> It is a matter of naming, but currently headers are (what you call)
>>> protocol/system headers, while properties are user-headers (work as
>>> variables). Do we really need to extend it further? If someone mix
>>> those two concepts then it is problem of documentation, but not lack
>>> of functionality. I would just extend DSL a little to be able to
>>> retrieve a property (instead using header()).
>>>
>>> What do you think, guys? Maybe we should clearly communicate what
>>> things are for and what are the consequences of using one or another.
>>>
>>> Roman
>>>
>>> PS. Pipeline should propagate all headers of course, but I believe an
>>> endpoint is a place where we shouldn't guarantee that headers will be
>>> propagated by stating it clearly.
>>
>> Properties have just lived in the dark and end users does not really
>> know they exists. We have some builder methods to set/get properties.
>> I guess we need to document and maybe make sure the Spring DSL also
>> has support for accessing properties as well.
>>
>> To my knowledge properties is always preserved so I doubt we have an
>> issue there.
>>
>> So users should just start learn using properties as well :)
>> However then we have the ProducerTemplate that has one liners for
>> sending an Exchange. We dont have a sendBodyAndProperties method. But
>> yet again it has too many methods already. They can just use
>> send("xxx", Exchange) and have exchange populated with the properties
>> of choice.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 2009/1/26 Claus Ibsen <claus.ibsen@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 9:08 PM, William Tam <email.wtam@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What we have stored in Headers today in Camel is both:
>>>>>> - user headers
>>>>>> - and system headers (added by Camel itself).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am starting to be more and more convinced that we should separate
>>>>>> the two.
>>>>>> So any headers that a users has enforced to be set should be kept
in
>>>>>> one Map and the others that the components set internally (such as
SQL
>>>>>> number of rows returned, or whatnot we have, there are many) in
>>>>>> another Map.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It means that a component would have to look for header in more than
>>>>> one place.   Besides, the distinction of user vs system header is not
>>>>> always clear.  For example, the operation name header for cxf endpoint
>>>>> can be set by user but it is also created by cxf component.   I am
>>>>> sure there are many more examples.  There is another header category:
>>>>> protocol headers.  A protocol header is not really a user or system
>>>>> header.  Protocol headers are header propagated from protocol like
>>>>> HTTP, which we do want to preserve in message header.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The user headers is always preserved and copied along in the routing.
>>>>>> User can always clear/remove unwanted headers.
>>>>>> The system headers should be short lived as they are not really
>>>>>> useable. So they are "alive" in the next step (process) in the route,
>>>>>> and when the pipeline invokes next route thereafter these information
>>>>>> is cleared.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Separating these will also make the routing/tracing a bit easier
as
>>>>>> Users can recognize their own headers instead its mixed with all
the
>>>>>> noise the Camel components add.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder we can leverage/extend the HeaderFilterStrategy mechanism.
>>>>> Currently, it is only used for filtering unwanted headers (in both
>>>>> request and response direction) when we propagate headers between
>>>>> Camel and external messages (like HTTP).   HeaderFilterStrategy is (or
>>>>> will be) associated with an endpoint.  We could make
>>>>> HeaderFilterStrategy available to the exchange object.  So, when an
>>>>> endpoint creates an exchange, the exchange gets a header filter
>>>>> strategy.  Then, pipeline can do something like this to filter
>>>>> unwanted header: message.filterHeaders().   The header filter strategy
>>>>> is highly customizable for each endpoint (can have a component wide
>>>>> default) and it can be looked up from registry.
>>>>>
>>>> Good pointers William.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah we can revist it after you have moved the header filters to the
>>>> endpoint.
>>>>
>>>> Then we can check up upon how to leverage it as you suggest.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Claus Ibsen
>>>> Apache Camel Committer
>>>>
>>>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Claus Ibsen
>> Apache Camel Committer
>>
>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>
>

Mime
View raw message