Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1CAAF104F6 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 21:43:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 551 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jan 2015 21:43:24 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-camel-users-archive@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 491 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jan 2015 21:43:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@camel.apache.org Received: (qmail 479 invoked by uid 99); 25 Jan 2015 21:43:23 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 21:43:23 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bibryam@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.174 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.174] (HELO mail-we0-f174.google.com) (74.125.82.174) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 21:42:58 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id w55so663132wes.5 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:41:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=JX+8+7o4C3IIPi8+V3DWE6XlHiVp3v4hVmwp4qXA1MY=; b=GL8VGkHVhbNiDFQJjiKSX9U6AO+x6E94AZX2tasLOj2X706k+ZXrulHfWBVQHSiFNf /6WqKThl+YI+5qqCHoranK9+z0rpwPN486kriaxXjyOlpZubBMeoNT5Cpu3x8+sccccV bivTOMr87yHCpThuYahV0b2Nt28t3RcDkGiOrxDwyEOmxyIpscLrSw7eXEmiPGWgn4Vm LUZ+IF7HLnaHPOyEBpVnVoMVtmNXHEzh2m3S4jMor9Tzhg1x18aU/5ZCPfNlXEpBDso0 MVYk5efoWhBjOnTsJP9oASRIRnvEFuQ7eUAkX78c+Rca0OxYOKd3X7vdMi0J6hNB+/wY CdnQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.236.1 with SMTP id uq1mr38173992wjc.28.1422222086934; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:41:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.217.70.10 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:41:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1421825394336-5761977.post@n5.nabble.com> References: <1421825394336-5761977.post@n5.nabble.com> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 21:41:26 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Choosing between Mapping Options From: Bilgin Ibryam To: users@camel.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d14a2489492050d80e2c0 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --089e013d14a2489492050d80e2c0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 1. For this option you can use Dozer to do the bean mapping and have better control using Java for more complicated transformation that cannot be done with xslt. 2. This option is more natural for xml processing, but some developers (including me) don't like working xslt. Also in one situation we found out that xslt transformation was the bottleneck in route, so changed it back to Java. I've seen it used both in the same project and cannot say whether one is better than the other. It is a matter of taste. HTH, On 21 January 2015 at 07:29, Satyam Maloo wrote: > We have a camel project requirement where 5 SOAP based CXF services needs > to > interact with each other. > Among these 2 camel projects are consumer and 3 cxf providers. > > The integration framework used is JBoss Fuse ESB. > > At the Integration layer we have created a common canonical format xsd. > Now we need to do transformations from consumer data format to the common > canonical data format and form common data format to provider data format > and vice versa. > > We have the below options available for data mapping: > 1. Creating POJO classes from wsdl and common xsd using wsdl2java plugin on > wsdl and then in the routes write java converters/mapping (something like > targetStructure.set(incomingStructure.get())) > 2. Use xslt/xquery for transformation > > Which is a better option? Java mapping or XLST mapping? Consider that we > are > using CXF framwork to push data to target system and writing integration > flows using Spring DSL > Kindly suggest with advantages over the other. > Thanks in advance. > > Satyam > > > > ----- > Satyam > -- > View this message in context: > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Choosing-between-Mapping-Options-tp5761977.html > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- Bilgin Ibryam Red Hat, Inc. Apache Camel & Apache OFBiz committer Blog: ofbizian.com Twitter: @bibryam Author of Instant Apache Camel Message Routing http://www.amazon.com/dp/1783283475 --089e013d14a2489492050d80e2c0--