[
https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-279?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=41116#action_41116
]
Roman Kalukiewicz commented on CAMEL-279:
-----------------------------------------
I agree on the fact, that DSL could modify some header, and there is nothing
wrong about it. I just think, that in a case I presented in my comment it
shouldn't.
the question is: what is the intended behavior of
{code}
beanRef("someBean", "fooMethod")
{code}
I think, that it is 'execute {{fooMethod()}} on {{someBean}} (and doesn't
change current {{METHOD_NAME}} header)', while it is not 'execute
{{fooMethod()}} and overwrite {{METHOD_NAME}} so all next invocations will
execute {{fooMethod()}}'.
Maybe it is my misunderstanding of the concept, but I believe, that from
external point of view {{BeanProcessor}} shouldn't change {{METHOD_NAME}}
header.
I assume that internally it could change this header, but I can imagine a bean
that tries to use [EMAIL PROTECTED](METHOD_NAME)}} annotation - should it be
given it's own method name, or original value of {{METHOD_NAME}} header? I
believe that the second answer is 'more' correct (but I'm not 100% convinced).
What I describe is only my thoughts - if we assume that it should work the way
it does now, then let's document it and we are done. I just think, that it is
not working in a way I would expect it to.
> BeanProcessor permanently sets METHOD_NAME header
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CAMEL-279
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/CAMEL-279
> Project: Apache Camel
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: camel-core
> Reporter: Roman Kalukiewicz
> Assignee: Willem Jiang
> Fix For: 1.3.0
>
> Attachments: bean-processor.patch
>
>
> Issue described here:
> http://www.nabble.com/BeanProcessor-multiple-method-invocation-on-same-bean-to14506245s22882.html#a14506245
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
