On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea<hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, exactly, but createFault() confused me a bit. I don't really se a > place for it. I understand these two proposals, what's the third (complete) > proposal? > > 1. the original one which Claus seemed to not like, dunno why. > Message getOut(); > void setOut(Message out); > boolean hasFault(); > void setFault(); > (setFault() does not need a boolean arg, as an fault cannot become an out, I > think. setOut() would reset the fault flag) Is it intended that setFault() do not accept any parameters?
> > 2. > Message getOut(); > void setOut(Message out); > Message getFault(); > void setFault(Message fault); Yeah this is nice and simple. Not confusing as OUT and FAULT have excactly the same set of methods, And the 3. could be James idea This is on Message. - This is on Message - This is on Message. (not Exchange) void setFault(boolean fault) boolean isFault() Then we do not need the fault on Exchange at all. > > Am I missing something? > > Hadrian > > On Jul 9, 2009, at 1:07 PM, James Strachan wrote: > >> 2009/7/9 Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> @James, yes it would, but why have createFault()? Why not have it closer >>> to >>> what it is now with >>> >>> Message getFault(); >>> void setFault(Message fault); // instead of create fault >>> (and then we won't need the setFault(boolean);) >> >> As we're musing about having a single property called "out" which may >> be marked as a fault or not. >> >> >> -- >> James >> ------- >> http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ >> >> Open Source Integration >> http://fusesource.com/ > > -- Claus Ibsen Apache Camel Committer Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
