On 26/03/2008, Roman Kalukiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/3/25, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I guess the biggest issue right now is if we did...
> >
> >
> from("quartz://myGroup/myTimerName/0/0/12/*/*/$").to("http://foo.com/bar.xml";).to("file://myDirectory/someName.xml");
> >
> > then the HTTP endpoint would tend to do a POST not a GET as it would
> > be receiving a payload of the quartz event. I guess thats just a
> > limitation of the HTTP endpoint; we maybe need some way to enforce the
> > GET operation or something?
>
>
> but this should work OK:
>
>
> from("quartz://myGroup/myTimerName/0/0/12/*/*/$")
>
> .setBody(constant(null))
>
> .to("http://foo.com/bar.xml";)
> .to("file://myDirectory/someName.xml");
Great idea :)
I have been wondering if we should add verbs to the DSL to
differentiate between folks wanting to do InOnly (one way messaging)
versus InOut (request/reply). I guess polling (OutOnly?) is another
variation on the theme.
I wonder if it might be cleaner to do something like.. (using 'get' as
the OutOnly).
from("quartz://myGroup/myTimerName/0/0/12/*/*/$")
.get("http://foo.com/bar.xml";)
.to("file://myDirectory/someName.xml");
Or if we wanted to consume from A then invoke B and send the result to
C we could be more explicit about the one-way / request/response
exchange pattern by
from(a).
request(b).
oneway(c)
using the verbs "request" to mean invoke with an InOut and "oneway" to
mean use an explicit InOnly.
Thoughts?
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration
http://open.iona.com
