Thanks for looking at it, Claus. Yes, I still have the same problem with interceptors. That is, what is documented at http://activemq.apache.org/camel/dsl.html looks good (i.e. usable) to me and that is what I meant to assert in the unit test. So I am curious what you think is wrong about the interceptor documentation. I don't have a real life use case yet, because I am still in evaluation phase, but to mention an example, I thought it would be useful for logging/debugging, to see what's happening at each step. So what I am seeing in the unit test is not what I would expect, since it changes the delivery of messages in ways that I cannot explain. (I expected camel interceptors to act analogous to interceptors in AOP)
So are you saying that the groovy tests are running ok in your environment? I can imagine that they are failing because of something in my environment but I think it's weird that there's no stacktrace or error message. (Just tried it again on HEAD after an update and they are still failing) Rintcius -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Some-questions-about-a-simple-setHeader-test-tp16467528s22882p16647704.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
