Personnaly, such bus integration already exist because when you read the
following article, we recommand to the user to use camel jms factory instead
of Cxf bus
(http://cwiki.apache.org/CAMEL/better-jms-transport-for-cxf-webservice-using-apache-camel.html).
My feeling is that we can improve Cxf integration within Camel (and that was
the purpose of my post) at by example the level of the bean camel component
to avoid code like inside the Bean (who is processing the message coming
from the CxF endpoint)
BindingOperationInfo boi =
(BindingOperationInfo)exchange.getProperty(BindingOperationInfo.class.toString());
if (boi != null) {
LOG.info("boi.isUnwrapped" + boi.isUnwrapped());
}
// Get the parameters list which element is the holder.
MessageContentsList msgList =
(MessageContentsList)exchange.getIn().getBody();
Holder<String> personId = (Holder<String>)msgList.get(0);
Holder<String> ssn = (Holder<String>)msgList.get(1);
Holder<String> name = (Holder<String>)msgList.get(2);
>From my point of view, the routing done by Cxf is substituted by Camel
rounting even when we would like to use WS-ADDRESSING. The WS-RM (=
reliability) is another topic but I'm sure that we can cover this matter
within Camel.
Kind regards,
Charles Moulliard
willem.jiang wrote:
>
> There are hug difference between the CXF and Camel.
> CXF is a service framework which helps us to export a POJO as a
> WebServices
> Camel is a rule based mediator , it has lots of component which can help
> us to connect different endpoints
> Even Camel and CXF has the same HTTP, JMS components, they don't share
> the same architecture of the Bus
> 1. CXF bus works as a component repository, which will wire the CXF
> components together
> CXF components don't need to know each other , they just ask the bus
> for getting the reference of other component
> 2. Camel's bus in my opinion, is a pipeline or filter which connects
> different endpoints and routing the messages.
> So we have the Camel-CXF component and Camel transport for CXF to make
> these two great framework working together.
>
> If your bus means the message handler chain, I should say there is not
> much difference between the CXF and Camel, but it is a high level
> abstraction of message handling framework :)
>
> Willem
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm investigating CxF project. During the reading of their documentation
>> (http://cwiki.apache.org/CXF20DOC/how-do-i-integrate-my-application-with-cxf.html),
>> I discovered that CxF use an internal bus to send messages over HTTP,
>> JMS,
>> ... My question is perhaps stupid but why don't we merge Cxf project with
>> Camel in order to avoid that both projects continue to develop their ESB
>> bus
>> separetely ?
>>
>> "L'union fait la force"
>>
>> Charles Moulliard
>>
>> -----
>> Enterprise Architect
>>
>> Xpectis
>> 12, route d'Esch
>> L-1470 Luxembourg
>>
>> Phone +352 25 10 70 470
>> Mobile +352 621 45 36 22
>>
>> e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> web site : www.xpectis.com www.xpectis.com
>> My Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com/
>> http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com/
>>
>
>
>
-----
Enterprise Architect
Xpectis
12, route d'Esch
L-1470 Luxembourg
Phone +352 25 10 70 470
Mobile +352 621 45 36 22
e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web site : www.xpectis.com www.xpectis.com
My Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com/ http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com/
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Idea-%3A-Merge-Apache-Cxf-project-with-Camel-tp19571141s22882p19574854.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
