camel-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From cmoulliard <cmoulli...@gmail.com>
Subject Camel - unmarshal/marshalling process and versioning
Date Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:51:25 GMT

Hi,

I would like to have the opinion of the camel riders regarding to the
following point. 

When you work with messages that you have to unmarshall/marshall, it occurs
frequently that you have to change how you parse or format your message
because the specifications have changed (e.g. FIX 4.1 --> 5.0) or because
your message format has evolved to respond to client request.

So depending of the message version nĀ°, the marshallin/unmarshalling process
will be (perhasps) different.

Question : Should we keep the processor of marhsalling/unmarshalling
independant of the messages version or do we have to provide this
information like this ?

scenario 1 :

from("file:////")
.unmarshall(BindyDataFormat) --> in this case, the bindy data format will
discover itself that the message is at ther version x and then parse it
according to the rules defined for that. So, several method of marshalling
or unmarshalling have to be created
.to("")

scenario 2 :

from("file:////")
.splitter(versionNĀ°)
.unmarshall(BindyDataFormatV1) 
or
.unmarshall(BindyDataFormatV2) --> in this scenario several BindyDataFormat
class exist, one by version
... 
.to("")

Regards,




-----
Charles Moulliard
SOA Architect

My Blog :  http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com/ http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com/  
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Camel---unmarshal-marshalling-process-and-versioning-tp22228365p22228365.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message