Hi Guillaume,
No problem about the jbi-examples, I'm happy to see we're working in the
same direction!
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
This leads me to several questions / remarks.
* does the current jbi component expect a wsdl 1.1 wrapped message as
defined in the spec ?
We currently have a ServiceMix-specific adapter class (*) that expects
the content of the SOAP:Body directly in the message. I'm hoping move
everything to WSDL 1.1-wrapped messages soon and have been working on a
patch for ServiceMix to do just that. We'll see if I can get it done
before I leave for vacation next week!
(*)
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ode/scratch/pxe-iapi/jbi/src/main/java/com/fs/pxe/jbi/msgmap/ServiceMixMapper.java
* i have fixed SM-488, will you be able to check that ?
Yes, I will. The changes you made looked good.
* from a JBI pov, it would be easier to use WSDL 2 (which would avoid
the
need to wrap the message)
I'm not sure it would be easier and I'm not sure it would really avoid
the need to wrap the message because we still need to map some headers
into the message content for some use-cases where processes want to
access protocol headers. And I don't know exactly what it would look
like (see comment below) since the WSDL 2.0 meta-meta-meta-model still
eludes me.
Would it be theorically possible to support it ? I know that bpel is
defined on wsdl 1.1, so i'm not sure if it would be possible to use
wsdl 2
Yes, from what I hear it's theoricaly feasible but I don't know what the
message should/would look like. I believe there would be no message
parts and the whole message would be described with (assumingly)
XSchema. Maybe Assaf can comment?
* when a bpel process send a jbi exchange, it seems you have to
completely
define the target jbi endpoint
in the deployment descriptor. I think it should be enhanced to
support
only the service name or an
interface name (which would be the port type name defined in the
wsdl)
We could also use URIs ( see
http://servicemix.goopen.org/site/uris.html) which leverage JBI external
endpoint
resolution.
Yes, I've been meaning to support only service name or only interface
name after I get the basic examples working. Same for external
endpoints, PXE should be able to resolve just about any EPRs given to it.
alex
