Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of claus.ibsen@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.223.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52585873.6090905@gmail.com>
References: <52585873.6090905@gmail.com>
From: Claus Ibsen <claus.ibsen@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 09:05:23 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAGB5yNktsYGgGmY1uKgSWXvo37iWyQ3Q-aHJjCBVHTWTzwFghw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Java DSL: do I have to have a child for a split()?
To: "users@camel.apache.org" <users@camel.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi

Yes a child output is expected.

Maybe instead of using splitter use message translator, and return
what your want asap, instead of splitting.

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Keith Freeman <8forty@gmail.com> wrote:
> My route is built in parts from different spots in my code, and at one point
> I do a split:
>
>     choice().when(...).bean(...).split().method(splitBean,
> "splitMethod").endChoice().otherwise().bean(...);
>
> This results in a "IllegalArgumentException: Definition has no children on
> Split...".
>
> But at this point in the code I don't know what's going to be added to the
> route, I just want the results of the split() to be forwarded down the
> route.  I currently accomplish this by sticking a no-op processor into the
> route:
>
>     ...split().method(...).process(new Processor() { public void
> process(Exchange e) { /* no-op */ }}).endChoice()...
>
> Which works fine, but do I really have to do this (it seems kind of ugly and
> inefficient)?  Is there something better as a Camel coding idiom that's
> maybe more efficient?


-- 
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
Red Hat, Inc.
Email: cibsen@redhat.com
Twitter: davsclaus
Blog: http://davsclaus.com
Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen