camel-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: echo() processor
Date Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:19:29 GMT
Hi Fintan,

I don't see how this would help.  There is no request and reply per  
se, there is just an exchange that has messages.  During processing  
the in and out messages will change many times and whatever will be  
the out message at the end of the pipeline will be sent as a reply to  
the caller.  As such, with or without echo(), same thing will happen.

I hope I didn't misunderstand your point.
Hadrian


On Aug 21, 2008, at 6:48 AM, Fintan Bolton wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Is there a case for adding an echo() processor to the fluent DSL,  
> where the
> echo() processor simply copies the In message to the Out message?  
> This could
> be useful for capping off routes that process InOut exchanges. For  
> example:
>
>
> from("jetty:http://FooHost/Bar")
>  .process(...).process(...)
>  .to("cxf:bean:MyService")
>  .process(...).process(...)
>  .echo();
>
> Where this example wraps a CXF Web service endpoint. The first  
> couple of
> processors, process(..), do work on the Web service _request_, and the
> processors that come after to(...) do work on the Web service  
> _reply_. At
> the end of the route, you need to reflect the the reply back to the  
> JETTY
> endpoint. An echo() processor would be handy for this purpose.
>
> I realize that this is not tremendously critical, because you could  
> already
> use 'transform(body())' to achieve the same effect. But using an  
> echo()
> processor is possibly more elegant.
>
> -
> Fintan
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/echo%28%29-processor-tp19086322s22882p19086322.html
> Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>


Mime
View raw message